Deon 
te 


at 


Jie ese 
as 


3 Bees 
= 


> 
x 


Whee 
‘3 


‘he 


a4 


* 


Ps 


at 


ENS 
re 


MOND Hie ᾿ 
τῷ 
PLSD SS 3) 


Ager dont 
SN iy 


ὭΣ 


Se ἣ PF 
BSD 

Rae 
Me 


‘ ‘ Fee) i} vie yy ; 14 eine Hive 4 aie 
ae WIE AE Me te λυ #4) ἮΝ ἈΚ OP 6 J 


Heer Cpu 
ie ; fa i of Patt Kad 
3 rs ἢ ina . Ἵ ᾿ Dae ἐν 
Boe τιν ὗ 


i eure 





Hrom the Library of 


Professor Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield 


Benueathed by him to 
the Library of 


Princeton Thealogical Seminary 








: κα Ὑ 3 


ae ; 
eee 
4 ὃ y 








Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2009 with funding from 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


https://archive.org/details/inspirationofhol0Oleew 


vat au 


2 
ῃ 


er ee 





| : vee oe νὰ ΜῊ 


THE 


ΓΝ lore ACT LON 


BO > War Och tae TU ty 3; 


ITS NATURE AND PROOF: 


EIGHT DISCOURSES, 
PREAOHED BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIX 


BY 


WILLIAM LEE, M.A., 


FELLOW AND TUTOR OF TEBINITY OOLLEGE. 


"Eore γὰρ ἐν τοῖς τῶν Τραφῶν ῥήμασι. Ὁ ΚΥΡΙΟΣ. 
8. Ατπάνάβῖσθ, Ad Marcellin. 


NEW YORK: 
THOMAS WHITTAKER, 


2 AND 3 BIBLE Hovss. 


αὶ 


ὅθε Carton ress 


171, 173 Macdougal Street, New York 


— 


PREFACE, 





1 ΤῸ not feel that any lengthened defence is necessary 
for having undertaken an inquiry into the subject with 
which the present work is occupied. Independently of 
the intrinsic importance of every question connected with 
the elucidation of Holy Scripture—the vagueness which 
too often characterizes the language employed by writers 
wr, in modern times, have treated of its Inspiration seems 
to render a fundamental examination into the nature of this 
Divine influence daily more desirable. 

So long, indeed, as the ‘mechanical’ theory of Inspira- 
tion -was generally maintained, there was no want of dis- 
tinctness or consistency in the views put forward. So 
long as it was believed that each word and phrase to be 
found in the Bible—nay, even the order and grammatical 
connection of such words and phrases—had been infused 
by the Holy Ghost into the minds of the sacred writers, 
or dictated to them by His immediate suggestion, so long 
must the opinion held respecting Inspiration have been 
clear, intelligible, and accurately defined. But such a 
theory could not stand the test of close examination. The 
strongest evidence against it has been supplied by the 
Bible itself; and each additional discovery in the criticism 


iv PREFACE. 


of the Greek or Hebrew text confirms anew the conclusion 
that the great doctrine of the infallibility of Holy Scrip- 
ture can no longer rely upon such a principle for its 
defence. 

The ‘mechanical’ theory having been tacitly abandoned 
—at least by all who are capable of appreciating the re- 
sults of criticism—and no system altogether satisfactory 
having been proposed in its stead, there has gradually 
sprung up a want of definiteness and an absence of con- 
sistency in the language used when speaking of Inspiration, 
owing to which those who are most sincere in maintaining 
the Divine character of the Bible have, not unfrequently, 
been betrayed into concessions fatal to its supreme au- 
thority. 

And not only is there a vagueness in the language which 
most writers employ when approaching this topic, there is 
also a want of completeness in the method usually adopted 
when discussing it. It is true that on one branch of the 
subject abundant and valuable information is to be found 
in various treatises; and so far as relates to the direct 
arguments which may be deduced from the expressions of 
the sacred penmen themselves in proof of their Inspiration, 
but little remains to be said that has not been forcibly said 
already. With reference, however, to the nature of Inspi- 
ration itself, and to the possibility of reconciling the un- 
questionable stamp of humanity impressed upon every page 
of the Bible with that undoubting belief in its perfection 
and infallibility which is the Christian’s most precious in- 
heritance—it may safely be maintained that in English 
theology almost nothing has been done; and that no effort 


PREFACE. v 


has hitherto been made to grapple directly with the diff- 
culties of the subject. At least I am unacquainted with 
any works in our language (with the exception of Mr. 
Westcott’s “ Gospel Harmony,” where some valuable but 
brief remarks are thrown out incidentally, and the treatise 
of Mr. Morell, to which I shall presently revert, ) that even 
profess to entertain the question. 

There is one principle, too, which forms a chief element 
of the theory proposed in the following Discourses,—I 
mean the distinction between Revelation and Inspiration,— 
that has never, to my knowledge, been consistently applied 
to the contents of Holy Scripture, even by those writers 
who insist upon its importance. At all events, the prin- 
ciple has never hitherto been made use of to the extent of 
which it is obviously capable. 

In advancing such assertions respecting the labors of 
others, I do not presume to lay claim to any amount of 
originality for my own. My object, throughout, has sim- 
ply been to collect as many facts and results as my ac- 
quaintance with ancient or modern researches into the text 
or interpretation of Scripture could supply; and thence to 
deduce what appeared to be the necessary inference. In 
every inquiry so conducted, the safety of the inference 
must, of course, depend upon the extent of the induction: 
and, consequently, the success of the method which I have 
ventured to suggest is susceptible of being indefinitely in- 
creased, in proportion to the number of new facts and 
results which may hereafter be accumulated by those 
whose learning and attainments far surpass any that I can 
pretend to possess. At all events, there is one obvious, 


v1 PREFACE. 


and by no means inconsiderable, advantage to be gained 
by pursuing this method. Valuable hints casting light 
upon the nature of Inspiration are being continually sug- 
gested; conclusive evidence in reply to the cavils of ob- 
jectors is gradually accumulating ; many positive arguments 
in support of the Church’s belief in the Divine influence 
under which the Bible was composed repeatedly present 
themselves in the writings of theologians ;—but the infor- 
mation thus existing is only ‘» be discovered after diligent 
and patient toil. Such hints and arguments are, for the 
most part, confusedly scattered through the various “ In- 
troductions” to the Old and the New Testament; or they 
occur in the course of works which treat of ‘ Christian 
Evidences’ in general; or they are to be occasionally found 
in some of those learned monographs with which the period- 
ical literature of our time, and especially that of Germany, 
is enriched. To the ordinary inquirer, however, such in- 
formation is practically inaccessible: and the labor must, 
therefore, be regarded as not destitute of utility that shall 
present, in a compact and intelligible form, elements so 
varied, and, in their original shape, so unconnected. | 
I have not scrupled, as I have said, to avail myself 
largely of the learning and researches of others: and 
among the works to which I owe the greatest obligations I 
may mention Olshausen’s’ “ Commentary on the New 
? It may not be unnecessary to add that, when I make use of the writings of others, 
it is by no means to be understood that I adopt any opinions put forward in the works 
referred to beyond those conveyed by the words which I have expressly quoted. E. 
g-: in Lecture vii. I have directly opposed certain views maintained by Olshausen; 
and, in Lecture i, the closing words of the former of the passages quoted in page 9, 


note *—viz: “und nur zufallig des Gesites nicht auch Erwahnung thut”—have been 
omitted, as conveying an idea altogether indefensible. 


PREFACE. vil 


Testament ;” Havernick’s “Introduction to the Old Tes- 
tament ;” Sack’s “ Christliche Apologetik ;” Beck’s “ Propa- 
deutische Entwicklung ;” and, especially, Rudelbach’s 
treatise on Inspiration, published in his and Guerike’s 
“ Zeitscrift.” I have endeavored, in all cases, honestly to 
state how far I have thus borrowed, even at the risk of in- 
curring the charge of pedantry. Should I be found, how- 
ever, to have appropriated the labors of others without due 
acknowledgment, I trust that the manner in which I have 
treated the present subject will plead my excuse; since, 
in reproducing an extensive body of facts and results, it is 
occasionally impossible to trace to their source certain of 
the suggestions and ideas previously collected,—owing 
either to the loss of the original reference, or to some inad- 
vertence in taking note of it. 

There are two English treatises on the subject of Inspi- 
ration to which constant allusions will be found in the 
following pages :—Mr. Coleridge’s “‘ Confessions of an In- 
quiring Spirit;’ and Mr. Morell’s “Philosophy of Re- 
ligion.” 

The former work has been thus alluded to by Dr. Ar- 
nold :—“ Have you seen your uncle’s ‘ Letters on Inspira- 
tion,’ which I believe are to be published? They are well 
fitted to break ground in the approaches to that momentous 
question which involves in it so great a shock to existing 
notions; the greatest, probably, that has ever been given 
since the discovery of the falsehood of the doctrine of the 
Pope’s infallibility.”* 


1 “To Mr. Justice Coleridge, Jan. 24, 1835.”—“ Life and Correspondence,” Letter 
xciy , 6tk ed., p. 317. 


Vill PREFACE. 


It cannot be doubted, I apprehend, that Dr. Arnold’s 
remark is, to a certain extent, well founded; and that this 
treatise of Mr. Coleridge has done more than any modern 
work to unsettle the pub’ic mind, in these countries, with 
respect to the authority due to the Bible considered as a 
whole. Independently of the high reputation and well- 
deserved influence of its author,—the peculiar charm of 
Mr. Coleridge’s style and diction and the atmosphere of 
poetry with which his pen invests every subject on which 
it touches have gained for this posthumous work a celebrity 
which, I venture to think, is altogether disproportionate to 
its merits. Its leading features will be considered in the 
course of the following pages: for the present, therefore, I 
content myself with referring to Mr. Coleridge’s statement 
of what he considered to be the strength of the argument 
with which he had to contend :—“ It will, perhaps, appear 
a paradox,” he observes, while repeating some of the popu- 
lar objections to the infallibility of Scripture, “if, after all 
these reasons, I should avow that they weigh less in my 
mind against the Doctrine, than the motives usually assigned 
for maintaining and enjoining wt. Such, for instance, are 
the arguments drawn from the anticipated loss and damage 
that would result from its abandonment; as that it would 
deprive the Christian world of its only infallible arbiter in 
questions of Faith and Duty; suppress the only common 
and inappellable tribunal; that the Bible is the only relig- 
ious bond of union and ground of unity among Protestants, 
and the like.”—Letter iv. Such having been his notion of 
the proofs which an upholder of the strict idea of Inspira- 
tion could allege in its behalf, it is not going too far to say 


PREFACE. 1x 


that, of the many brilliant compositions with which he has 
enriched our literature, these “Letters” are the least wor- 
thy of Mr. Coleridge’s genius; and that their subject was 
one upon which the extent of his information did not en- 
title him to pronounce an opinion. 

The other treatise to which I have, in like manner, de- 
voted considerable attention, is that of Mr. Morell; in 
which he professedly undertakes to recommend to English 
readers the theology of Schleiermacher (see infra, p. 11, 
note*). No stronger proof can be given of the unsettled 
state of opinion respecting Inspiration prevalent even with 
well-informed persons, than the manner in which the ob- 
servations of Mr. Morell have been accepted by Dr. Peile. 
Dr. Peile, in his “ Annotations on the Apostolical Epistles,” 
when giving at length the passage of which I have cited a 
portion in Lecture i., page 21, introduces the quotation 
with the remark :—“ To borrow the words of Mr. Morell, 
who, in his ‘ Philosophy of Religion,’ has devoted two in- 
valuable chapters to the elucidation of this deeply interest- 
ing subject.” | 

The extent to which the system of Schleiermacher 
strikes at the root of all objective Christianity, I have 
endeavored to exhibit in the following pages. I trust, how- 
ever, that, while noticing Mr. Morell’s adoption of Schleier- 
macher’s views respecting Scripture, I have not expressed 
myself so as to appear insensible to the merits possessed 
by other portions of his remarks on the “ Philosophy of 
Religion.” 

The form which the present work has, owing to special 


1 “ Annotations on the Apostolical Epistles,” vol. iii p. 178. 


x PREFACE, 


circumstances,’ assumed, is, perhaps, attended with some 
inconvenience ; inasmuch as certain portions of the subject 
which might have been more fitly conjoined have been, of 
necessity, considered separately. I have endeavored, how- 
ever, to remedy this inconvenience, such as it is, by the 
adoption of a system of cross references, whereby all that 
is said on any particular branch of the inquiry can be 
taken in at a single view. I may be permitted also to 
observe, that a reader who does not desire to enter 
minutely into the different questions discussed in the 
following pages, can obtain a full idea of the theory of 
Inspiration which I have proposed from Lectures i., iv., 
vi., and viii. 

I cannot conclude without taking the opportunity of 
returning my warm thanks to the friends whose kindness 
and valuable assistance I have so repeatedly tasked during 
the progress of this volume through the press. 

W. L. 


Dusuin, TRINITY COLLEGE, 
June, 1854. 


1 This form has been imposed by the fact that the first six of the following Dis- 
courses were preached in the course of my duty as Donnellan Lecturer in this Univer- 
sity for the year 1852, 


CONTENTS. 





LECTURE I. 


THE QUESTION STATED. 


REVELATION.—The Locos reveals. The Holy Spirit inspires. Hach Book of the 
Old, or of the New Testament, considered as a record of Revelation, forms an 
essential part of one organized whole. 

The Bible contains a Human as well as a Divine Element. Hence, from the un- 
due prominence given to one or other of these elements, have arisen two ΟΡ" 
posite views respecting Inspiration. (1.) The ‘mechanical’ theory of Inspira- 
tion. (2.) The various schemes founded upon the exaggeration of the Human 
element ;—which, again, may be classed under three heads. Each of these 
extremes, although in a very different degree, erroneous. 

The problem to be solved supplies two Conditions. (1.) The co-existence, in 
the Bible, of its Human and Divine Elements. (2.) The fact that certain 
portions of the Bible are not Revelations. The first Condition is satisfied by 
the ‘dynamical’ theory of Inspiration. The second Condition is satisfied by 
the distinetion between Revelation and Inspiration. 

The character and value of the proof of Inspiration founded upon “The wateects 
AMENDS PURE cee ECL oth ches tate ns 2a. jes a.) ein nko hoa eee a 


LECTURE II. 


THE IMMEMORIAL DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF UGs4. 


The Canon of Scripture. Why did not the Jewish Church accept aw inspired the 
Book of Ecclesiasticus; or the Christian Church the Epistle of S. Clement of 
Rome? 

The proofs of Inspiration supplied by the Jewish Chur.o. The Apocrypha. 
Philo. Josephus, The opinions of the Jews accepted in cue New Testament. 

᾿ Not from the motive of ‘accommodating’ Christianity te Judaism. The prin- 
ciple of ‘ Accommodation’ considered. 

The proofs of Inspiration supplied by the Christian (1.cvch. The judgment of 
THOPRAtDORS wee cool of wok subse ata Por (ete emcee rosea eles hMal Je. tel ve 


rt 


5} 


x0) CONTENTS. 


LECTURE III. 


THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW.—THE LOGOS THE REVEALER, 


Paqs 


To adduce proofs of Inspiration from Scripture itself is not a petitio principit. 

The indissoluble connexion, and co-equal authority, of the Old and the New 
Testament. The revival in modern times of early errors on this subject:— 
the school of Schleiermacher. The connexion proved (1.) from the statements 
of the New Testament ; (2.) from a comparison of the supernatural agencies 
employed under both the Jewish and the Christian Dispensation. The Logos 
the Revealer in both. “The Angel of Jehovah.” The expressions τὸ ῥῆμα 
τοῦ Θεοῦ, and ὁ Λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, how related, . - - . - « «© « « © « 


LECTURE IV. 


REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. 


The ‘dynamical’ theory of Inspiration. Not of itself sufficient to account for all 
the phenomena. Inspiration essential to the record of Revelation. Proofs 
of the ‘dynamical’ theory. The ‘ Law’ generally observed in the development 
of Revelation. 

The Theocracy. The Prophetic Office. The “Schools of the Prophets.” Pro- 
phetic intuition. The personal condition in which Revelations were received. 
The state of Ecstasy. Visions the result of Ecstasy. The function of the 
Imagination. Symbolic actions. Symbolic visions. The poetry and the 
symbolism of the Prophets. The ‘perspective’ character of Prophecy. How 
ta ΠΟΘ ΘΣΡΙΆΙ ΘΝ δ ἐν es) ie: tol siey os lett) a (tose nme 


LECTURE V. 


REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. 
(Subject continued.) 


The full bearing of their predictions was not disclosed to the Prophets. The ex- 
planation of this fact offered by Dr. Hengstenberg. This explanation erro- 
neous. The Prophets retained their consciousness while giving utterance to 
their predictions. The case of Balaam considered. 

How was the Divine character of Revelation attested? Miracles. Prophecy. 
Schleiermacher’s objections. Proofs of the constant supervision exercised 
over the acts and words of the “ Servants of God.” 

The Inspiration of Scripture specifically distinct from the ordinary influence of 
the Hoiy Spirit in the Church. Errors resulting from confounding these two 
senses of the term. This distinction illustrated by 5. Peter’s ‘dissimulation’ 

AMTOCD Ss 45 OV. tay SS a6) Pak Meee had AG hed Ronee alee Roe Se Renee 


91 


139 


187 


CONTENTS. 


LECTURE VI. 


SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 


General presumptions. The titles appropriated to the sacred writings. The guid- 
ance of the Holy Ghost promised to the Disciples by Christ, on four distinct 
occasions, These promises may be divided into two classes:—those recorded 
in the Synoptical Gospels, and those recorded by 8. John. The former class 
of promises fulfilled. Admission of Paulus to this effect. The nature of the 
second class of promises considered. Misconception of the school of Schleier- 
macher refuted from what the New Testament tells of 8. Peter and 8. Paul 
This class of promises also fulfilled. Confirmation of this inference supplied 
by an argument of Strauss. 

The testimony of Scripture as to the result of the Divine assistance thus con- 

- ferred upon its authors. The Harmony of the Human and the Divine Intelli- 
gence. The infallible authority claimed by the sacred writers, 

The seventh chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, 


LECTURE VII. 


THE COMMISSION TO WRITE.—THE FORM OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN. 


The closing of the Old Testament Canon. The Commission to write. 

Earlier portions of the Bible made use of in those Books which are of later date. 
The theories as to the source of the Synoptical Gospels. The Inspiration of 
the Evangelists unaffected by the result of such inquiries. References 
by the Old Testament writers to the Books composed by their predeces- 
sors. 

The quotations from the Old Testament in the New afford an experimentum 
crucis of every theory of Inspiration. Such quotations may be divided 
into (1.) the strictly prophetical ;—of which four subdivisions present them- 
selves: and (2.) those in which the language of the Old Testament is πε 
corporated with the body of Christian doctrine. ‘Collective’ quotations. 
How far the New Testament writers have adopted the literal;—how far 
the allegorical method of exposition. Their quotations never introduced by 
way of mere ‘application.’ Four classes of quotations with reference to the 
relation of the Hebrew text to the Septuagint Version. The form of such 
quotations is, in no instance, to be explained by the principle of quoting 
from memory.” 

The style of the New Testament, . ....... 


xiii 


Pags 


oC 


. 235 


. 28) 


ΧΙΥ 


CONTENTS. 


LECTURE VIII. 


REOCAPITULATION.—OBJEOCTIONS CONSIDERED. 


Pags 


The nature of the facts recorded in Scripture. No distinction between “ matters 
of fact,” and “matters of doctrine.” The Divine character of Scripture ex- 
tends to its language. 

JRJECTIONS : 


1. 


IL 


Ti. 


“The sacred writers contradict each other.” This objection tested by its 
application to the Gospel Harmony. Illustrations from Astronomy (the 
perturbations of Uranus), and History (the death of Alexander the Great), 
exhibit its unphilosophical character. The facts exhibited by 8. John’s 
Gospel confirm this conclusion. 

“The statements of Scripture contradict those of profane history.” his 
objection tested by examining Strauss’s attack upon S. Luke. 8S. Luke, ii. 2, 
and iii. 1, considered. The historical accuracy of the Evangelist proved. 
“The statements of Scripture are often at variance with the results 
of Science.” This objection illustrated and tested by the example of 
“ Joshua's Miracle.” 


Aow is the language of Scripture related to the language of Science? The re- 


JeeeNabi;——Roeh;—Chozehy (271%) a) ec) πὸ =) Ne ieee elite ADO a 6 


spective duties of the Theologian and the Philosopher. Conclusion, . . 333 
APPENDIX. 

AS eMichte; 3 Se wi -eiak is sets: je be tess ς οἷς ao tel olen 381 
B. Scripture an organized whole, . - «ὁ τς . + « « « « « 6 «© « 1389 
C. Modern theories of Inspiration,. . . . . . το «© «© «© © « «= « OOD 
D. The “lost” Books of the Old Testament, . ..... .- 5 - . 408 
HE Dhe aH pistle ofS. barnabas τ τς ς el ie τς fell lel lens τς . 415 
Ree mlovand JOsephus., memos) ile Mel tert ss) Ve pile Ὁ ΝΣ sie) eS 
G. The judgment of the Fathers, . . . . . ...-. « « os et ΕΔ 
HeetherAddressiofsS., Stephens menus celle) πιο τότ᾿: “Ὁ « e448 
ye The Captain of the Lord’s\Host,”  .) see eee εὐ ον ῊΣ Ἐγ4 68 


456 


is Giornale mice OO sea Golo oOo 6 6 oo Go 6 6 0 Chl 
L. The origin of the Synoptical Gospels, . . . 2. «2 2 eo . 464 
M Did 8. Matthew write in Greek? . . . . . 0 «© « oe © « « . 4617 
N. “Inspired reasoning,” .. . ὡς e © « « © s « » ayia he . 474 


EDITIONS REFERRED ΤῸ IN THE FOLLOWING PAGES. 


Novum Testamentum Grece,. - « . 5 » τ 
Vetus Test. Greece, juxta LXX. Interpretes, . . 





OSOPRUS! 1 cy elo. ol te), epelenmonouleuiet Ὁ 
Philo wudseus: 2. «© το woMleimemuel tol.) 20 ς 


“SS. Patres Apostolici,” . . . ° sine ἘΣ 
“Seriptor. Ecclesiast. Opuse.” (rec. Routh), mien 
“Reliquize Sacre” (rec. Routh), . . . . - « 





SRAM ers GG MG ao Oh Obed 0 BG 
5, Athanasius,. . SM rarenesn omer ree Tice) 75 
Athenagoras (ap. Out 5. Justin. Mart), . .. - 
sk ΑΠΙΡΤΞΙΠΠΗΝ οτος Gelb Ge oO Oot 
SH ΒΆΒΗΙΠΗ ΝΕ ane ΚΒ assis) οἷς δ el) shen 
WASSIOUOLUS Meise iste eliial Lisle, vel ieit es) eh vs 
ΟἸΘΙΠΘΉΞ ΑἸΘΧΙ τ. ὦ 000 le. 0 «6 05 .6) 5 Ὁ 
ἘΟΒΓΙ ΔΏΙΗ five) πο οἷ πὶ πον οἱ (αἴ τ Ὁ (welll 
Sayan pA ΘΙ ον το Ὁ Ὁ δ | slfiiiel τος δ᾽ (5 δ᾽ 5 
ΒΞ. 1111 ἘΓΊΘΤΟΝ., ia) ςν τὸ γοῦν. « οἱ ὁ 
ΠΡ ΡΗΤΘΙΠΊ ΤΟΣ ες ὁ πα 2, [οὐ ὁ. ς 0) ee 
& Epiphanius,. . .. ° ΩΝ ΡΥ Δ ke 
Eusebius Pamphili (“ Hist. Feel”), SECU RC pC 
SEGRE ΟΡ Maes! lle) © ie! πον 1/6), \0) 6. δ. ὦ 
. Gregor. Reina Seo ΚΟ ini ss] ls) δι) 6 ἂρ ἴω: ἐν 
- Gregor. Neocms,, ©. s « ὁ © © ὁ © © « 
Gregor. Nyssen., . ὁ. «ὁ 9. ἃ © « « δ᾽ « ὁ 
SWEIGYONYMUS ΟΣ ο΄ ὁ 6. ὅς Ὁ. δ᾽ © © οἷ᾽ ὁ 
ἘΠΙΗΤ ΠΗ ΕΙΟΙΗΝ τὶ οἱ πὴ ὁ δ᾽ κ᾽ 6 κ΄ ὦ ο΄ us 
Hippolytus,. ὦ ς Ὁ « « « « «© © ὁ « 2 
ΡΟΥΘ ΘΝ πο γι} Hci: ov 09, Metis) 6) 60 οὐ Ὁ 
IsidorusvEispalsy ss: (so: ὁ. δ᾽ 5. σ᾽ ο᾽' ' 6)) = 
SEISIQOTUSPE OCIS) τς ἧς δὺο ὅδ᾽ δ᾽ ©) οὐ ον 5. ὁ 
. Johannes Chrysost.,. . ὁ. © © © © « « 
. Johannes Damascem., . . « «© © e » « » 
. Justin. Martyr, . . - 

53, Macarius Aigypt. (ap. pe 8, ‘Grogor. Meocss, ) 
ΟΥ̓. ΒΗΘΗ sheen πρὸς πο τ ὦ δι Lea aenn en ts 
ΠΡΥΠΠΠΙ ΒΗ ἀν τὸ, ‘os 06. ee δ΄“ «Ὁ ὁ} Ὁ 
ΠΠΡΟΘΟ ΙΝ =)...  ς - Ξ - 
Theophilus Antioch. (ap. ΤῊΝ 8. Justin. Mare , : 
ἘΠ ΘΟΙΠ ΠΟΙ τος Ue) lee! 6) τ \* Bod 
S. Thomas:Aquinas).~. 2. οὖ 2 νὼ πω 6 


ARANDRANMAMNMMNMM?N 


Ed. Tischendorf, Paris. 1842 
Ed. Tischendorf, Lips. 1850. 


Ed. Havercamp. Amst. 1726 
Ed. Mangey, Lond. 1742. 


Ed. Coteler. Amst. 1724. 
Ed. altera, Oxon. 1840. 
Ed altera, Oxon. 1846. 


Ed. Ben. Paris. 1686. 

Ed. Ben. Paris. 1698. 

Ed. Ben. Paris. 1742. 

Ed. Ben. Paris. 1679. 

Ed. Ben. Paris. 1721. 

Ed. Ben. Rothom. 1679. 
Ed. Potter, Oxon. 1715. 
Ed. Ben. Paris. 1726. 

Ed. Aubert. Paris. 1638. 
Ed. Ben. Paris. 1720. 

Ed. Asseman, Rome. 1732, 
Ed. Petav. Paris. 1622. 
Ed. Reading, Cantab. 1720. 
Ed. Ben. Paris. 1706. 

Ed. Ben. Paris. 1778, 1840. 
Paris. 1622. 

Paris. 1638. 

Ed. Vallars. Veron. 1734. 
Ed. Ben. alt. Veron. 1730 
Ed. Fabric. Hamb. 1716. 
Ed. Ben. Paris. 1110. 
Colon. 1617. 

Paris. 1638. : 
Ed. Ben. Paris. 1718. 

Ed. Le Quien, Paris, 712. 
Ed. Ben. Paris. 1742. 
Paris. 1622. 

Ed. Ben. Paris. 1733. 

Ed. Rigalt. Paris, 1634. 
Ed. Sirmond. Paris. 1642. 
Ed. Ben. Paris. 1742. 

Ed. De Rubeis, Venef, 1754 
Venet. 1745. 





LECTURE 1 


THE QUESTION STATED. 


“Quod colimus, Deus unus est, qui totam molem istam cum omni instrumento cle- 
mentorum, corporum, spirituum, verbo quo jussit, ratione qua disposuit, virtute qua 
potuit, de nihilo expressit in ornamentium majestatis suze, unde et Graci nomen mundo 
KOZMON accommodaverun;. * * * Sed quo plenius et impressius tam Ipsum, 
quam dispositiones ejus et voluntates adiremus, instrumentum adjecit literature, si qui 
yelit de Deo inmirere. et inquisito invenire. et invento credere, et credito deservire.” 

TERTULL Apviog. <s + vii. xviii. 


‘Scripture quidem perfectee sunt, quippe a Verbo Dei et Spiritu ejus dictze.” 
8. Inenzxus, Cont. Her. lib. 11, xxviii. 2. 


“Ooa ἡ θεία γραφὴ λέγει, τοῦ Ivedparic εἰσι τοῦ ‘Ayiou φωνάι. 
Β. Gracor. Nyssen. Cont. Hwnom. Orat. vi 


LECTURE I. 


THE QUESTION STATED: 


WE ARE LABORERS TOGETHER WITH GOD.—1 Cor. iii. 9. 


In tracing the foundation of the Christian doctrine of Inspi- 
ration, all researches must arrive at one ultimate fact. Man, by 
his natural powers, can not attain to the knowledge of his Maker. 
‘¢ No man hath seen God at any time.’ ‘‘ Dwelling in the light 
which no man can approach unto, Him no man hath seen, nor 
can see.”” Whence, then, is derived that knowledge on the de- 
gree of which depends the perfection of man’s nature, and the 
ground of his hopes ? 

A philosopher of modern times, who makes no profession of any 
Christian sympathies, thus aptly states the question :—‘ It is a 
phenomenon which merits the attention, at least, of an observer, 
that among all nations, so far as they have raised themselves from 
the perfectly savage state to that of a community, there are to be 
found opinions of a comraunication between higher beings and 
men ; traditions of supernatural inspirations and influences of the 
Deity upon mortals ; in a word, although presented here more 
rudely, there under an aspect more refined, still, as a universal 
fact, the observer finds the notion of Revelation. This notion 
seems, of itself, were at only on account of its universality, to de- 
serve some respect ; and it appears more worthy of a fundamental 
philosophy to trace out its origin, to seek for its claims and its 
authority, and to pass sentence upon it according to the measure 
of these discoverres, rather than at once, and without a hearing, 
to class it among the inventions of deceivers, or to banish it to 
the land of dreams.”? It is unnecessary here to state how far such 

1 Joba i. 18. 31 Tim. vi. 16. 


3. “Wergich einer Kritik aller Offenbarung,” von Johann Gottlieb Fichte.—s, 1 
ate A rflage. Konigsberg, 1793. See Appendix A. 


20 THE QUESTION STATED. [LECT. 1 


a criticism has resulted in adding a further confirmation to the 
universal belief of mankind—a belief which has been expressed 
in every age and in every land. The fact, however, of such com- 
munications from the Supreme Being is one which may fairly be 
assumed ; and with an examination of what is implied by a 
Divine Revelation, our inquiry must commence. 

According to the usage of language, the word expressing this 
idea is employed in two different senses. It either denotes the 
Divine act of unveiling, or disclosing, or manifesting information 
to man—that is, the manner or form of the Revelation ; or it 
signifies the very information thus imparted,—that is, the matter 
or contents. During the course of our inquiry we shall have oc- 
casion to consider each of these two significations, although the 
latter relates chiefly to the province of Bibilical exposition. As 
all knowledge of God is essentially connected with the idea 
of Religion, it may be well, in order to avoid ambiguity, to 
commence with the ordinary and real distinction conveyed by 
the phrases Natural and Revealed Religion ; the former being 
founded upon such manifestations of the Divine Being, His will 
and acts, as are made by, or may be inferred from,—firstly, ex- 
ternal nature, and, secondly, the inward constitution of man τ 
the latter having as its basis the revelation, strictly so-called, 
which rests upon facts,’ and of which the record is the Bible, to 
which sense also it may be well to restrict the term “ Revelation,” 
(ἀποκάλυψις). The former class of Divine manifestations is im- 
plied and assumed in the Bible itself, which, as I have said, is 
the record of the latter ; the term “manifestation” (davépworc), 
too, being appropriated by St. Paul to this very idea.* 


' “So ist die natirliche Religion die Erkennbarkeit Gottes, das γνωστὸν τοῦ 
Θεοῦ (Rom. i. 19) aus den Werken, wofern diese nur mit Hinschluss des Menschez 
als seines héchsten Werks gefasst werden * * * so ist auch die natiirliche Re- 
ligion ihrem Wesen nach Offenbarung.”—Sack’s Christliche Apologetik, 5. 63. 

? I mean facts, as opposed to phenomena. 

5. In the New Testament dialect ἀποκάλυψις has the fixed signification, ‘divine 
communication,” “revelation.” §. Jerome observes: 

“Verbum quoque ipsum ἀποκαλύψεως, id est, revelationis, proprie Scripturarum 
est, et a nullo sapientum szeculi apud Greecos usurpatum. Unde mihi videntar quem- 
admodum in aliis verbis, que de Hebrxo in Greecum Septuaginta Interpretes transtu- 
lerunt, ita et in hoc magnopere esse conatos, ut proprietatem peregrini sermonis ex- 
primerent, nova novis rebus verba fingentes.”—Comment. in Ep. ad Gal., lib. i. cap. 
1. tom. Vii. p. 387. 

In the LXX. the word ἀποκάλυψις is found but seldom; viz., 1 Sam. xx. 30; 
Ecclus. xi. 27; xxii. 22; xli. 23: but in none of these cases has it the sense of 
“ divine communication.” 

‘ Rom. i.19,20 ‘That which may be known οἱ God is manifest (φανερόν) in 


LECT. I.] THE QUESTION STATED. 21 


In the first place, in the world of sense, Nature’ is represented 
in Scripture as disclosing the Being and the Agency of God. 
From it, as the organ of the Divine power, the super-natural 
shines forth : “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the 
firmament showeth his handywork.” The creation itself is an 
istance of God’s coming forth from the mysterious and silent 
depths of his invisible Being ; its pages present, as it were, a mar- 
vellous language in cipher, from which the Author permits some 
of His thoughts to be more or less distinctly inferred ; -‘ The in- 
visible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly 
seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His 
eternal power and Godhead.’* Again, in the intimations afforded 
by the inward constitution of man, God manifests himself no less 
plainly in the world of thought ; partly by the higher powers of 
knowledge, partly by the voice of conscience and the moral sense. 
In the depths of our souls we are conscious of feelings more sub- 
lime than can spring from our own finite and limited individu- 
ality." “ The Gentiles,” writes the Apostle, “‘ having not the Law, 
are a Law unto themselves, which show the work of the Law 
written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing wit- 
ness.”* ‘These two sources of Divine knowledge imply each other, 
and belong to the province of philosophy. They are as universal 
as the human race ; ‘there is no speech nor language where their 
voice is not heard.”* God has never left Himself without a wit- 
ness “‘in that He did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and 
fruitful seasons, filling our heart with food and gladness,” For, 
such “ manifestations” of God’s Being it is the duty of all to 
seek : “ He hath made of one blood all nations of men, that they 
should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after Him, and 


them; for God hath showed it (ἐφανέρωσεν) unto them.” Cf Acts, xiv.17. Bret- 
schneider was, I believe, the first thus to employ the term “‘ manifestation” as express 
sive of the peculiar sense in which the Apostle here applies the idea.—Cf. “ Hand- 
buch der Dogmatik,” ler Band. s. 155, 4te Auflage. 

1 Cf. Bockshammer’s “ Offenbarung und Theologie,” 5. 5. 

Ag -ab- quay 

> Rom. i. 20. 

4 Twesten, referring to the arguments which reason supplies for the existence of 
God, justly appeals to the results of modern investigations in proof of the proposition 
that reflecting upon the finite can never lead man beyond the finite, if he does not 
already bear within himself the consciousness of the Infinite.—Cf. “ Vorlesungen tiber 
die Dogmatik,” ler Band. 5. 345. 

5 Rom. ii. 14, 15. 

SUES) Lx, 9: 7 Acts, xiv. 17 


22 THE QUESTION STATED [LECT. L 


find him, though He be not far from every one of us, for in Him 
we live, and move, and have our being.”? 

The particulars just considered form the groundwork of what 
is termed Natural Religion ; the conveyance of God’s will by 
means of facts’ is the foundation of what we term Revealed Re- 
ligion. Natural and Revealed Religion can never be contrasted ; 
but there is a real, although it is but relative contrast between 
the channels through which they are conveyed, i. e., between Na- 
ture and Revelation.* How, then, are they related ; and where in 
nature can we recognise a Divine activity other than that exhibited 
in the order of the universe ?* Nature and Revelation alike pro- 
ceed from God, and, consequently, if their relation to each other be 
correctly expressed, all semblance of absolute opposition must, of 
itself, disappear. We have, therefore, to seek for some point in 
which they both unite; in which Nature assumes a religious 
aspect, as plainlyas Revelation presents itself as a matter of fact. 

We have assumed that the Divine influence over Nature did 
not cease at the act by which the world was called into being :— 
the perfection of creation, surely, does not suspend the vital im- 
pulse which it received from God, nor is the Creator’s power to 
be restricted to the original imposition of purely mechanical 
laws. Now, if God speak by means of the phenomena of the 
universe to the spirit of man, such a result can never be ascribed 
to the purely natural element which pervades the world. This 
only points to some other element of the same kind, equally finite 
with itself; and by virtue of the chain of causes reveals to us 


1 Alluding to the passage here cited (Acts, xvii. 26-28) Bretschneider (loc. cit.) 
observes: ‘‘ Bei der Manifestation ist der Mensch activ, und muss Gott suchen und 
ergreifen.” This writer goes on to confound the ideas of Revelation and Inspiration. 
Inspiration he defines to be that species of Revelation in which God acts without the 
intervention of any intermediate cause (“sine causarum externarum intervent: ; 
and as man is active in the case of “ Manifestation,” so in ‘ Inspiration” he is passive 
{“ Bei der Inspiration verhalt sich der Mensch leidend”) ; in proof of which he quotes 
2 Pet.i.21. But see infra, p. 40. 

To the class of Divine ‘‘ Manifestations” some writers (6. g. C. F. Fritzsche, “ De 
Revelationis notione Biblica, p. 13) add that effected by the course of history: ‘‘Our 
fathers understood not Thy wonders in Egypt. * * * Nevertheless He saved 
them for His name’s sake, that He might make his mighty power to be known.”— 
Ps, evi. 7, 8, οὗ Ps. exxxvi. 

3. E. g. the giving of the Law from Sinai—the Incarnation, &e. 

3 “Differunt certe informationes oraculi et sensus et re et modo insinuandi: sed 
spiritus humanus unus est, ejusque arcule et celle eedem. Fit itaque, ac si diversi 
liquores, atque per diversa infundibula, in unum atque idem vas recipiantur.”—Bacon, 
De Augment. Scient. lib. ii. cap. 1. 

4 This subject is discussed by Sack in his remarks, ‘‘ Vom Begriffe der Off-nba- 
rung,” Apologetik, ss. 114-147 


LECT. 1.] THE QUESTION STATED. 23 


nothing more than the mutual dependence of the particular ex- 
istences in the world of Nature, but not the sovereignty of God. 
That which reveals the Supreme Being, and thus mediates between 
God and man, is the divine Logos, or Creating Word, which 
proceeds from the essence of Deity. Without this notion there is 
no religious view of Nature, nor can we recognize its Divine Author 
as revealed by it.’ It is only the relationship of our spirit to this 
Original Intelligence (which is at once exalted above Nature, and 
really operative within it), which renders it even tonceivable that 
Nature should thus influence us. Between this view of the world 
and Atheism (which banishes God from His universe), or Pan- 
theism (which identifies Him with it), there is no alternative. 
Hence it is that the active revealing power in Nature, and the 
historically revealing element in Religion, have one and the same 
principle. In short, the true notion of all Revelation is expressed 
in a saying of §, Athanasius when speaking of the Incarnation : 
—‘It was the office of the Divine Word, who by His peculiar 
providence, and setting in order of the universe, affords instruc- 
tion concerning the Father, to renew that same instruction.”’ 
This renewed instruction effected by direct communications from 
above, as well as that “ manifestation” of God effected through 
the medium of Nature, are alike to be traced to the same Eternal 
Word. No man hath seen God at any time, the only-begotten 
Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared 
Him.”* Now, Revelation, properly so called, is distinguished in 
Scripture into Revelation by Word, and Revelation by Act—the 


1 “So ist alle Offenbarung ein Thatwort des Logos an den Geist des Menschen; und 
dieses Thatwort auch in der Natur zu erkennen, ist die einzige Art, die Natur relig- 
108 und als Mittel der Offenbarung anzusehen.”—Sack’s Apologetik, s. 121. 

28. Athanasius, De Incarn. cap. 14, tom i. par. i. p. 59. The chapter begins by 
stating that when the features of a portrait have been effaced, it is necessary that the 
original should again be present, in order that the likeness may be restored. Κατὰ 
τοῦτο καὶ ὁ πανάγιος τοῦ πατρὸς ὑιὸς, ἐϊκὼν ὧν TOD πατρὸς, παρεγένετο ἐπὶ τοὺς ἧμε- 
τέρους τόπους, ἵνα τὸν κατ’ ἀυτὸν πεποιημένον ἄνθρωπον ἀνακαινίσῃ * * * τίνος ὄυν 
ἦν πάλιν χρεία, ἢ τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου τοῦ καὶ ψυχὴν καὶ νοῦν ὁρῶντος, τοῦ καὶ τὰ ὅλα ἐν τῇ 
κτίσει κινοῦντος, καὶ δι’ ἀυτῶν γνωρίζοντος τὸν πατέρα; τοῦ γὰρ διὰ τῆς ἰδίας προνοίας 
καὶ διακοσμήσεως τῶν ὅλων διδάσκοντος περὶ τοῦ πατρὸς, ἀυτοῦ ἦν καὶ τὴν ἀυτὴν διδασ- 
καλίαν ἀνανεῶσαι. 

In addition to this passage (the closing sentence of which is quoted by Sack, p. 
132), [ may adduce the expression of the same thought by S. Ireneus: “ Per ipsam 
conditionem, revelat Verbum conditorem Deum, et per mundum fabrificatorem mundi 
Dominum, et per plasma eum qui plasmaverit artificem, et per Filium eum Patrem 
qui generaverit Filium * * * Sed per Legem et Prophetas similiter Varbum et 
Semetipsum et Patrem predicabat.”— Cont. Heer., lib. iv. cap. vi. p. 234. 

5 John i. 18. 


24 THE QUESTION STATED. [LECT. 1 


Act, or miracle, representing and expressing, in the world of sense, 
what the Word, or knowledge communicated, expresses in the 
world of thought: the former being to the ordinary law of Na- 
ture, what the latter is to the light of Reason." In one point of 
time, and in one form of life, both these elements have found 
their perfect union. Both have been united in Him who is the 
subject of all Revelation.* The being to whom we must ascribe 
the words, although expressed by the messengers of God; He 
who, in like mafiner, performed the acts, although by the instru- 
mentality of these same agents, was the Locos, God’s eternal, 
personal, self-Revelation,—God, who as Word, spiritually, and 
yet really, maintains the world.’ But now the fact of the Incar- 
nation presents to our view both these forms of Revelation com- 
bined ;—that entrance of the Eternal Word into the personal 
and historical limitations of a ‘‘ Son of Man.” In this great fact 
Revelation, on its historical side, has been closed, on its spiritual 
side has been rendered perfect and immortal, And thus we can 
not conceive (nor does Scripture record) that any Revelation was 
ever made to Christ. He was not only the Revealer,—“ the true 
Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world,” ‘— 
but also the Revelation, “‘ God manifest in the flesh.” 

There are three epochs in which Divine Revelation gives to 
the history of religion the very condition of its existence :—-The 
Primitive Revelation ; the Covenant Revelation to Israel ; Revela- 
tion in the appearance of Christ. It has pleased God that of this 
Revelation a record should be conveyed to after times. It could 
only be conveyed by the medium of language ; and since Scrip- 
ture appears, in history, as the acknowledged means of preserving 
this record, we here behold the transmission of Revelation by a 
written document. But whence the title Holy Scripture ? 


1 C£ “Twelve Sermons on Heb. i. 1, 2,” delivered at the Boyle Lecture, A. D. 1708, 
by Bishop Williams (of Chichester), p. 17: a work which, notwithstanding some (as 
I conceive) erroneous statements as to Inspiration, is of much value. 

* In God as Logos, Word and Act are ever united: “ΗΘ spake, and it was done; 
He commanded, and it stood fast.”—Ps. xxxiii. 9. ‘‘ Wie sein Wort immer die aller- 
erfolgreichste That ist, schlechtin schaffend: so ist auch séine That immer im héch- 
sten Grade redend und unendlich Gedanken erzeugend.”—Sack, s. 136. 

5 Nature, observes 8. Athanasius, is sustained and preserved by the Logos from 
that dissolution which its own fleeting and frail. materials must have induced. For 
God who by His eternal Word gave existence to the Creation,— 

Ὡς ἀγαθὸς τῷ ἑαυτοῦ λόγῳ Kai ἀυτῷ ὄντι θεῷ τὴν σύμπασαν διακυβερνᾷ καὶ Kabio- 
τησιν, ἵνα τῇ τοῦ λόγοι; ἡγεμονίᾳ καὶ προνοίᾳ καὶ διακοσμήσει φωτιζομένη ἡ κτίσις, βε- 
θαίως διαμένειν δυνηθῇ).---- ΟΥ αἱ. cont. Gentes. n. 41, tom. i. p. 40. 

4 John, i. 9, ef. Luke, ii. 32. 


LECT. I.] THE QUESTION STATED. 25 


Traced to its true source, this notion depends upon the fact, that 
the ideas of the Eternal Word, and of the Divine Spirit, are 
here, to a certain degree, correlative.’ The Word, as divine and 
eternally creative, has the Spirit as the divine and eternally ani- 
mating principle, in and with Himself, By the agency of the 
Divine Spirit the meaning and the will of the Eternal Word are 
introduced into the real being of things.? All divine activity in 
the world is organic, So also the arrangements of God’s Revela- 
tion form a system which comprehends all things ; which aids in 
bringing light into darkness ; whose centre is Christ, to whom 
every Revelation in earlier times must be referred, and from 
whom every Revelation, of a later period, has proceeded, by vir- 


1 Of, Sack, “ Von der heiligen Schrift,” Apologetik, 5. 418. 

The topic here introduced is so essential to a just view of the present subject, that 
I am induced to quote in full the following passages. On Rom, Xi. 36 (ἐξ dutod καὶ 
60 ἀυτοῦ καὶ ἐις ἀυτὸν τὰ πάντα), Olshausen observes :— 

“Paul at length closes his great dogmatic discussion with a‘doxology, in which 
God is described as embracing all things—as the Beginning, Middle, and End, of all 
things, and, consequently, of the believing Israel as a whole, and of every individual 
That these references are what is intended by the prepositions ἐξ, dia, and εἰς, is no 
longer questioned by later expositors. But, on the other hand, they continue blind 
to the fact that these references also express the relation of Father, Son, and Spirit. 
In an exactly similar way it is said of God, Eph. iv. 6,6 ἐπὶ πάντων καὶ διὰ πάντων, 
καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν. Of the Father as the sowrce of all being, ἐκ or ὑπό is always (stets) used 
in the New Testament, and ἐπί with respect to His absolute power; of the Son, al- 
ways dvi, as the Revealer of the Father, the organ of His agency (comp. on Johni. 3); 
of the Spirit, εἰς. so far as He is the End to which the divine agency leads, or év, so 
far as He is the element which penetrates and supports all things. 1 Cor, viii. 6, is 
decisive in favor of this interpretation; where Paul himself explains the ἐξ οὐ and δι᾽ 
οὐ of the Father and the Son.”—Der Brief an die Rém., Comm. 3er Band. 8. 420. 

Again, on Col. i. 17, Olshausen, returning to this subject, writes as follows:— 

“The various relations of the creature to the Eternal are expressed by the prep- 
ositions διά, εἰς, and ἐν. The dvd refers to the origin of the creature, which proceeds 
from the Father through the Son; εἰς refers to the end of the creature, as all is created 
to or for Him, as the final aim of things (cf. verse 20); on the other hand ἐν points, as 
the συνέστηκε unmistakeably shows, to the present stability of the world, which is 
always im the Son, so far as He supports and upholds the world with His word (Heb. 
1. 3), and the upholding may also be considered as a continuation of the creation. 
There is but one difficult point in this description, which sets forth Christ’s divine na- 
ture in the most distinct manner; namely, that elsewhere the relation of the Holy 
Ghost to the creature is usually expressed by the prepositions εἰς and ἐν (cf. on Rom. 
xi. 36); but here the Son is always the subject. In other passages, Θ. g. 1 Cor. viii. 
6, εἰς is also used of the Father. However, this difficulty is satisfactorily explained 
by the fact, that to each of the three Divine Persons, by Himself, just because they 
are real Persons, and carry life in themselves, all relations of the Trinity can be attrib- 
uted.”—Der Brief an die Coloss., Comm. 4er Band. s. 339. 

This reference to the mystery of the Trinity, as denoted by the three prepositions. 
is noticed by Origen, Comm. in Hpist. ad Rom. lib. vim. tom. iv. p. 642. The passage 
is quoted by Mr, Alford in loc. 

2 Tt is well observed by Rudelbach, in his Essay “‘ Die Lehre von der Inspiration 
der heil. Schrift,” published in his Journal for 1840, that “the transition to a written 
document, composed according to God’s will, can detract in no respect from the power 
and efficacy of His Word On this assumption rests the whole notion of Jnspira- 
tion.”—ler Theil. 5, 24. 


26 THE QUESTION STATED. [LECT. 1, 


tue of that Holy Spirit imparted, through Him, to the world.’ 
This agency of the Holy Spirit, by the very force of the term, 
forms the essence of the idea of Inspiration ; and the two con- 
ceptions thus pointed out, of the Eternal Word as the Divine 
Person who reveals, and of the Holy Spirit as the Divine Person 
who inspires, are the pillars upon which must rest any theory re- 
specting the Bible and its origin which can deserve serious 
notice.” 

But, before entering upon the direct question of Inspiration, 
a matter of vital moment must be adverted to, any confusion of 
ideas respecting which must perforce mar and distort the whole 
aspect of the inquiry. It must first be settled, What is the Bible ὃ 
and In what light are we to regard it? In reply to the former of 
these questions, with which the present investigation is not di- 
rectly concerned, I point to that collection of writings, whether 
of the Old or New Testament, which our Church accepts as Ca- 
nonical, and which she defines in her Sixth Article. The answer 
to the latter question, viz., ‘‘ In what light is the Bible, as a col- 
lection of such and such books, to be regarded ?” demands some 
observation. There is an error growing up in our time, closely 
allied to that false spiritualism which in the second century 
formed the essence of the heresy of Marcion, which draws a 
sharp line of distinction between the Old Testament and the 
New. The leading representative of this opinion in modern 
times is the founder of a school which commands extensive influ- 
ence on the Continent, and the principles of which have been 
recently advocated with no small ability among ourselves.’ The 


' Cf. Twesten’s ‘‘ Vorlesungen,” ler Band. p. 289. 

? See on this question Lecture iii. infra. 

* “The Philosophy of Religion, by J. D. Morell, A.M. London, 1849.” 

“Tf there be one mind whose personality may have impressed itself more than 
any other upon my own, in tracing out the whole course of the following treatise, it 
is assuredly that of the revered Schleiermacher; indeed the analysis of the idea of re- 
ligion, and its reference to the absolute feeling of dependence, is taken substantially 
out of the introduction to his great work, the ‘Glaubenslehre.’ That God would 
send such a mind and such a heart to shed their influence upon ourselves, and guide 

_us from the barren region of mere logical forms into the hallowed paths of a divine 
life, is the best wish I can breathe for the true welfare of every religious community 
in our land.”—Pref. p. xxxiii. 

Quinet, in his eloquent essay on Strauss in the “ Revue des Deux Mondes” for 
1838 (tom. 4me., p. 463, &ec.), adverts with justice to the influence of Schleiermacher. 
He observes, that in the commotion of the German mind, and the daily increasing 
destruction of all belief, nothing causes him greater surprise than the calmness of 
those writers “ qui, effagant chaque jour un mot de la Bible, ne sont pas moins tran- 
qiilles sur l’avenir de leur croyance’ Schleiermacher was the greatest of them all— 


LECT. 1I.] THE QUESTION STATED. 27 


founder of this school, the celebrated Schleiermacher, maintains 
that while Christianity is no doubt connected histcrically with 
Judaism by the fact that Jesus was born among the Jewish 
people, still the reason of this merely was, that the universal 
Redeemer could not well appear except among a monotheistic 
people.’ This whole system regards the Old and New Testament 
as factors of a perfectly heterogeneous nature: the Law is not 
inspired ; nor even the historical parts of the Old Testament ;* 
and Christianity, so far as its peculiar features are concerned, 
stands in precisely the same relation to Judaism as to Heathen- 
ism. But not to dwell upon sentiments so extreme, and from 
which even the followers of Schleiermacher seem to recoil,’ I can 
refer to the views of a respectable English writer. Dr. Pye Smith 
thus expresses himself in some remarks upon the Old Testament 
contained in his work on “The Scripture Testimony to the 
Messiah :”’—“ Many of the facts thus recorded have not directly 
a religious interest, but they were valuable to the Israelites and 
Jews as fragments of national and family history ; and in our times 
they have proved to be of great importance in casting light upon 
the almost lost history of several nations.”* 


“ fait pour régner dans ce trouble universel si l’anarchie des intelligences eit consenti 
a recevoir un maitre.” 

1 Of. ‘‘ Der Christliche Glaube von Dr. Friedrich Schleiermacher,” 4te Aufgabe, Ber- 
lin, 1842. ler Band.s.77. And even this prerogative of the Jews must be received 
with qualifications: “Und so war auf der andern Seite auch das hellenische und r6- 
mische Heidenthum auf mancherlei Weise monotheistisch vorbereitet, und dort die 
Erwartung auf eine neue Gestaltung aufs ausserste gespannt, so wie im Gegentheil 
unter den Juden die messianischen Verheissungen theils aufgegeben waren, theils 
missverstanden. So dass wenn man alle geschichtlichen Verhaltnisse zusammen- 
fasst, der Unterschied weit geringer ausfallt, als auf den ersten Aublick scheint.”—~ 
8. 78. 

? Nay more, as to the value of the Old Testament for Christians: ‘‘ Werden wit 
gewiss eben so nahe und zusammenstimmende Anklinge auch in den Aeusserungeg 
des edleren und reineren Heidenthums antreffen.”—s. 80. 

3 E. g. Twesten, who, as Nitzsch justly observes (‘Studien und Kritiken,” 1828 
s. 227), rather omits the consideration of this question, than treats it with the atten: 
tion which its importance deserves. Nevertheless he follows in the footsteps of his 
master so far as to assert, “ We cannot regard these writings as a rule for Christians, 
and, therefore, the question arises, how we are to regard them from the stand-point 
of Christian theology.”— Vorlesungen, ler Band. 5, 322. 

4“The Scripture Testimony to the Messiah.” 2d Ed. vol. i, notes, p. 41. Of 
this “note” Mr. Morell observes, ‘‘ So, also, to some extent that admirable scholar 
and theologian, Dr. J. P. Smith, in one of his notes to the Scripture Testimony to the 
Messiah; a note which had almost brought out the controversy [as to ee 
fairly into this country, but that its hour was not yet arrived.”—The Philosophy 9 
Religion, p. 189. I quote this observation as illustrating the extent to which the 
question has been fermenting in the public mind. 

Mr. Morell himself observes, with respect to the books of the Old Testament from 
Joshua to Chronicles: ‘“ All that we can say is, that they were universally received, 


28 THE QUESTION STATED. [LECT. 1. 


All such views, according to the principles which it will be my 
endeavor to establish, are founded upon a fundamentally erro- 
neous conception of the nature and structure of the Bible. This 
Divine record, comprising the two great divisions of Old and New 
Testament, presents itself to the acceptance of mankind as one 
organized whole: as an elaborate structure whose various parts 
zonspire to the attainment of one definite end, the entire edifice 
being constructed according to one grand design, That one end 
is the Salvation of man,—that grand design is the economy of 
Redemption. The stage on which this great drama was to be 
enacted was the history of the human race ; and in no other lan- 
guage than that of the Bible itself can be described the antithe- 
sis which this history affords: ‘‘ God saw every thing that He 
had made, and behold it was very good,”! is the statement of the 
first chapter of the Old Testament ;—the writer who closes the 
New Testament, on the other hand, proclaims, ‘‘ We know that 
we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.”* With 
the two ideas of Redemption and Salvation, the entire framework 
of Revelation is inseparably connected. To the first man was 
given a hope of the redemption of his race ; and beyond this the 
last of the Prophets can not go.* The appearance of the Re- 
deemer Himself did no more than give reality to these antici- 
pations. 

There is an inseparable bond of union connecting the two 
divisions of the inspired volume: “ The law was our schoolmaster 
to bring us unto Christ.”“ The aim of each earlier Revelation 
of the Eternal Word was to restore, in their original purity, the 
lost truths of religion, and to build them up anew in the midst 


both as veracious histories, and as containing correct religious sentiments, by the 
Jewish people.”—Jbid. Ὁ. 161. 

Of the Psalms, he concludes :— 

“ All we can say is, that they embodied the religious consciousness, or, if the term 
be preferred, the state of insniration to which the mind of the writer was elevated.”— 
P.162. This view may be illistrated by what the author had just observed as to the 
Pentateuch: “ All we mean 18, that the inspiration here involved did not spring from 
any outward commission to write that particular book; but only from the Divine light 
which was granted to the age, and to the mind of the author—a gift which he was 
-eft to make use of as necessity or propriety might suggest.”—Jbid. p. 161. 

1 Gen. i. 31. an ohm aval: 

* See Davison, “ Discourses on Prophecy,” 5th Ed. p. 74. Twesten has received 
much praise for having similarly connected the ideas of Revelation and Redemption. 
“Unter Offenbarung verstehen wir hier die Aeusserung der gottlichen Gnade zum 
Heile (εἰς σωτηρίαν) des gefallenen Menschen in ihrer ursprtinglichen Wirkung auf 
die menschliche Erkentniss.”— Vorlesungen, ler Band. 8. 345. 

4 Gal. iii. 24. 


LECT. 1.} THE QUESTION STATED. 29 


of historical and positive false religions." This latter circum- 
stance, of necessity, stamped a character of separation upon the 
Revelation of the Old Testament ; which Revelation, however, 
from its design of restoration, must be also characterized by a 
principle of development. The patriarchal Revelation elected 
and separated an individual and his family ; the sanctions of its 
covenant were faith and hope.* When this became clouded by 
idolatry and unbelief, a new Revelation was annexed to and 
founded upon it; and which, while it imposed, in the Mosaic 
Law, a more positive or penal discipline,* held out in the field of 
prophecy a greater fulness of promise, and a brighter prospect ot 
hope. In the legal element, Revelation develops more strongly 
its separating character ; in the element of promise, its move- 
ment in advance is more apparent, removing more and more the 
barriers which confined the covenant people. Lastly, the Dispen- 
sation introduced by Christ includes and perfects all previous 
phases of Revelation, and combines them in itself into an organ- 
ism complete on all sides. It perfects both the legal and prom- 
issory side of the Old Testament Revelation. The Law becomes 
real, living truth; the promise becomes actual grace: ‘‘ The 
Law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus 
Christ.”‘ Its individuality is now stamped with universality : 
“ Many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down 
with Abraham, Isaac, and Jaccb, in the kingdom of heaven.”’ 
Its character of separation at length expands into that of a king- 
dom of the elect, extending over all the people of the world. 
And thus, following the course and progress of Revelation, the 
several parts of the inspired volume sprang gradually into being : 
“The brook became a river, and the river became a sea.” ® 

The immediate design, indeed, of each element of this collec- 
tion of writings, or the precise end attained by its connection with 
the others, we may not as yet be able to discern—although the 
progress of knowledge, and the light afforded by the fulfilment 
of prophecy, have largely extended our information as to these 


1 Compare, on this point, the admirable remarks of Beck, pp. 120-143 of his 
“ Propadeutische Entwicklung der Christlichen Lehr-Wissenschaft,” Stuttgart, 1838. 

2“ Your father Abraham,” said Christ to the Jews, “rejoiced to see my day, and 
he saw it and was glad.”—John, viii. 56; cf. Heb. xi. 

5 “ Wherefore then serveth the Law? It was added because of transgressions,”— 
Gal. iii. 19; cf. Rom. vii. 7. 

4 John, i. 17. 5 Matt. viii. 11. 6 Ecclus. xxiv. 31 


30 THE QUESTION STATED. [LECT. L 


matters.' But, the fact of such ignorance respecting the purpose 
of each portion, and the functions performed by it in the organ- 
ized structure of the Holy Scriptures, is no reason for our deny- 
ing that a purpose was designed ; while, as in the case of every 
organized whole, each discovery of such or such a final cause but 
serves to illustrate the connection and mutual relation of all its 
parts, although our researches may fall very far short of perfec- 
tion, Take, for example, the animal economy. The veins and 
arteries had performed their appointed functions, and diffused 
the vital current through the frame for thousands of years before 
their final cause was pointed out. To the present hour the ner- 
vous system remains a mystery; and yet, who will question its 
importance or its utility ?? And, to carry the analogy one step 
farther,—as the various portions of the animal structure are 
called at different times and for different purposes into different 
degrees of activity, so the relative value and prominence of the 
various parts of Scripture alter according to the wants and inter- 
ests of the age. In our day, certain portions of Holy Writ, 
which were of main importance in the early ages of the Church 
(and which will maintain to the last their vital, though relative, 
value), may not be of such immediate practical applicability ; 
while, on the other hand, what is all essential now was not then 
so peculiarly called into action. The character of the inspired 
record itself, however, does not vary. The landscape remains 


Thus St. Jerome profoundly observes :—‘ Paralipomenon liber, id est, Instru- 
menti veteris ἐπιτομή, tantus ac talis est, ut absque illo si quis scientiam Scripturarum 
sibi voluerit arrogare, se ipsum irrideat. Per singula quippe nomina, juncturasque 
verborum, et preetermissz in Regum libris tanguntur historize, et innumerabiles ex- 
plicantur Evangelii queestiones.”—Hpist. liii. ad Paulinum, tom. i. p. 277. 

Thus it is that Ezra, i. 1, is inexplicable without the predictions of Isaiah and Jere- 
miah; which, in their turn would be altogether obscure without the record of their 
fulfilment preserved by Ezra and Nehemiah. Again, as Mr. Westcott justly remarks, 
“The relation of Christianity to the old dispensation, which is historically exhibited 
in St. Matthew, is argumentatively deduced and specially illustrated in the Epistle 
to the Hebrews, the authority of which can never be doubted by those who have any 
deep sense of the perfect providential instruction of the Church; for without it the 
types of the Old Testament are, in most cases, unexplained, and the full significance 
of the past unrecognized and undeclared.”—Elements of the Gospel Harmony, p. 140. 
See Appendix B. 

* Origen has well developed this same analogy: 

* % * 61 yap περὶ τὰς ἀνατομὰς πραγματευσάμενοι τῶν ἰατρῶν, δυνάνται λέγειν 
ἕκαστον καὶ τὸ ἐλάχιστον μόριον ἐις τὶ χρήσιμον ὑπὸ τῆς προνοίας γεγένηται" νόει μοι 
τοίνυν καὶ τὰς γραφὰς τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον πάσας βοτάνας, ἢ ἕν τέλειον λόγου σῶμα" ἐι 
δὲ σὺ μήτε βοτανικὸς & γραφῶν, μήτε ἀνατομεὺς τῶν προφητικῶν λόγων, μὴ νόμιζε περι 
ἕλκειν τι τῶν γεγρωμμένων ἀλλὰ σεαυτὸν μόνον ἢ τὰ ἱερὰ γράμμ "τα ἀιτιῶ, ὅτε μὴ FOL? 
κεις τὸν λόγον τῶν yeypaumévwv.—Homil. xxxix. in Jerem. ton ili. p. 2Ά8. 


LECT. 1.] THE QUESTION STATED, 31 


still the same, althuugh the sun, as the storm-cloud floats along, 
may lend greater brilliancy to some features of the scene, and cast 
others for a moment into the shade. 

The various parts of Holy Scripture, then, I would again re- 
peat, in order to be rightly understood, or justly valued, must be 
regarded as the different members of one vitally organized struc- 
ture ; each performing its appropriate function, and each convey- 
ing its own portion of the truth. Consider the parts sustained 
by two of our four Gospels. A one-sided apprehension of Apos- 
tolic teaching had introduced in the early Church different phases 
of false doctrine. Had there been but one Gospel, the Church’s 
teaching might have been, in like manner, one-sided. From the 
Gospel of St. Matthew the higher nature of Christ could not 
have been so clearly proved to the Ebionites, as from that of S. 
John ; while the former was better calculated to oppose the dreams 
of the Gnostics." But the four Gospels having been combined in 
the Canon, the Church has thus been defended on all sides. 
Hence the Gospels were well termed by an early Father® the four 


1 Of these heresies 8. Irenzeus observes: 

“ Hbionei eo Evangelio, quod est secundum Matthzeum, solo utentes, ex illo ipso 
convincuntur, non recte presumentes de Domino. * * * Hi autem quia Valen- 
tino sunt, eo quod est secundum Joannem plenissime utentes ad ostensionem conju- 
gationum suarum ex ipso detegontur,” &e.— Cont. Horr., lib. iii. 11, p 189. 

78. Ireneus. ’Erewd7 * * * στύλος δὲ καὶ στήριγμα ἐκκλησίας τὸ ἐυαγγέλιον, 
καὶ πνεῦμα ζωῆς, ἐικότως τέσσαρας ἔχειν ἀυτὴν oTVAoVc.—Lbid. p. 190. S. Irenzeus 
adds the well-known comparisons of the four regions of the world, the four principal 
spirits, and, in fine, the four forms which made up the Cherubim, (Hzek. i. 10. Rev. 
iv. 7.); observing that the Divine Logos, who sits upon the Cherubim, “ dedit nobis 
quadriforme (τετρώμορφον) Evangelium, quod uno spiritu continetur.” In like man- 
ner, 8. Cyprian: ‘‘ Ecclesia Paradisi instar exprimens, arbores fructiferas intra muros 
suos intus includit. * * * Has arbores rigat quatuor fluminibus, id est Evangeliis 
quatuor.”—Hp. lxxiii. p. 182, On this passage Mr. Westcott aptly observes: —‘“ An 
old Father compared our four Evangelists to the rivers which encircled the earthly 
Paradise: truly their streams,spring from different lands, and flow in different ways: 
yet each protects some boundary of the Church, and conveys to it the waters of 
life." —Hlements of Gospel Harmony, Ὁ. 18. To the same effect 8. Jerome styles the 
four Evangelists “quadriga Domini, et verum Cherubim.’’—Ep. liii. ad Paulinwm, 
tom. i. p. 278. 

Gieseler,; in his essay ‘‘On the origin of the written Gospels,” p. 200, points out 
with his usual learning the source of such metaphorical language, which writers un- 
acquainted with the questions agitated in the primitive Church are wont to regard as 
puerile or unmeaning. The heretics continually objected that the Church claimed 
four Gospels, while the Apostles taught but one. Thus, in the “ Dialogus de recta in 
Deum fide,” which is contained in the first volume of the works of Origen, the Mar- 
cionite argues: 

᾿Εγὼ ἐλέγχω ἑτέρωθεν, ὅτι φάλσα ἐστὶν τὰ ἐναγγέλια͵ λέγει yap ὁ ἀπόστολος ἕν évay- 
γέλιον, ὑμεῖς δὲ τέσσαρα Aéyete.—P. 801. 

Hence, observes Gieseler, ‘‘the Fathers are at great pains to ψοϊηὐ out that their 
Gospel is always One; presented, nevertheless, under four forms, handed down by 
four witnesses, divided into four books.” How well suited to the taste of the age 


32 THE QUESTION STATED. (LECT. 1, 


pulars of the Church, each supporting its own portion of the 
structure, and guarding it from subsiding into any of those forms 
of false doctrine to which partial views of the truth had given 
rise. 

In seeking for the grounds of that peculiar authority which is 
claimed for the Bible, we are first of all met by the question as to 
the authorship and genuineness of the separate writings of which 
the volume is composed. With this portion of the subject our 
present inquiry has no immediate concern. The various points 
connected with it constitute a distinct branch of theological sci- 
ence, to which in recent times the title ‘‘ Introduction” (Kinlei- 
tung) has been appropriated ;’ and the results of which the pres- 
ent investigation must assume. Were we to content ourselves 
with such results, no small advantage would be attained. The 
Holy Scriptures would still be to us objects of the highest value 
were we merely to regard them as historical documents from 
which we might learn to know the doctrine of Christ, as we learn 
the opinions of Socrates from the pages of Xenophon and Plato. 
But we have too much depending on the certainty of these docu- 
ments not to feel ourselves disquieted by the doubt, Is the orig- 
inal Revelation transmitted to us through them in its primitive 
purity ?—a doubt which at once disappears if we firmly establish 
the Inspiration of the writers ; and show how such Inspiration is 
reflected by and preserved in the pages of Scripture. 

The Bible presents to us, in whatever light we regard it, two 
distinct elements,—the Divine and the Human. This is a matter 
of fact. On the one hand, God has granted a Revelation ; on the 
other, human language has been made the channel to convey, and 
men have been chosen as the agents to record it. From this point 
all theories on the subject of Revelation take their rise ; and all 
the varieties of opinion respecting it have sprung from the man- 
ner in which the fact referred to has been taken into account 
Uhere are two leading systems in this department of theology : 
were the comparisons employed in the elucidation of this fact, appears from the gene- 
ral custom, founded upon the simile of the Cherubim, of ascribing to each Evangelist 
one of the forms of which the Cherubim consisted. 

? Perhaps the earliest instance of the use of this term is to be found in the Preface 
to the treatise by Cassiodorus (A. Ὁ. 538), ‘De Institutione Divinarum Literarum,” 
where he styles his work “introductorios libros.” Ed. Bened, tom. ii. p. 537. He 
refers subsequently to previous ‘ Introductores Scripturee divine ;” of whom he names 


Tichonius the Donatist, 8. Augustine, in his work, “ De doctrina Christiana,” Hadrian, 
Bucherius, and Junilius. Ibid. ο. x. p. 545. 


LECT. I.] THE QUESTION STATED. 33 


the one suggested by the prominence assigned to the Divine ele- 
ment, the other resulting from the undue weight attached to the 
Human. The former of these systems practically ignores the 
Human element of the Bible, and fixes its exclusive attention 
upon the Divine agency exerted in its composition. This system 
admits and can admit of no degrees. It puts forward one consis- 
tent and intelligible theory, without subdivisions or gradations. 
According to it, each particular doctrine or fact contained in 
Scripture, whether in all respects naturally and necessarily un- 
known to the writers, or which, although it might have been as- 
certained by them in the ordinary course of things, they were not, 
in point of fact, acquainted with ; or in fine, everything, whether 
actually known to them, or which might become so, by means of 
personal experience or otherwise,—each and every such point-has 
not only been committed to writing under the infallible assistance 
and guidance of God, but is to be ascribed to the special and im- 
mediate suggestion, embreathment, and dictation of the Holy 
Ghost. Nor does this hold true merely with respect to the sense 
of Scripture and the facts and sentiments therein recorded, but 
each and every word, phrase, and expression, as well as the order 
and arrangement of such words, phrases, and expressions, has 
been separately supplied, breathed into (as it were) and dictated 
to the sacred writers, by the Spirit of God.*_ For the present, I 
shall merely observe, that, while I can by no means accept this 
system as correct, or as consistent with the facts to be explained, 
it will be my object in the present Discourses to establish in the 
broadest extent all that its supporters desire to maintain ; name- 
ly, the infallible certainty, the indisputable authority, the per- 
fect and entire truthfulness of all and every the parts of Holy 
Scripture. 
The characteristic of the other system to which I have alluded, 
and to which the great majority of the modern theories of Inspi- 
* “Omnia et singulz res qua in S. Scriptura continentur, sive ille fuerint 8. Scripe 
toribus naturaliter prorsus incognite, sive naturaliter quidem cognoscibiles, actu ta- 
men incognite, sive denique, non tantum naturaliter cognoscibiles, sed etiam actu 
ipso note, vel aliunde, vel per experientiam, et sensuum ministerium, non solum 
per assistentiam et directionem divinam infallibilem literis consignatze sunt, sed sin- 
gulari Spirits 8. suggestioni, inspirationi, et dictamini accept ferendz sunt. Omnia 
enim, que scribenda erant a Spiritu S. sacris Scriptoribus in actu isto scribendi sug- 
gesta, et intellectui eorum quasi in calamum dictitata sunt, ut his et non aliis cireum 


stantiis, hoc. et non 8110 modo, aut ordine scriberentur."—J. A. Quenstedt. Theolo 
gia Didactico-Polemica, cap. IV. sect. ii. p. 67. 


3 


34 THE QUESTION STATED. [LECT. L 


ration are to be referred, is that of ascribing undue prominence 
to the Human element of the Bible. I must content myself 
here’ with briefly stating the three heads to which, I conceive, all 
the varieties of opinion, which may be traced to this source, can, 
with more or less definiteness, be reduced. 

I. To the first head may be referred those writers who have 
changed the formula ‘ The Bible 7s the Word of God,’ into ‘ The 
Bible contains the word of God,’ Writers of this class, while they 
generally shrink from absolutely drawing the line between what 
is and what is not inspired, yet broadly assert as well the possi- 
bility as the existence of imperfections in Scripture, whether re- 
sulting from limited knowledge, or inadvertence, or defective 
memory on the part of its authors.*. Such imperfections are often 
restricted to what are termed ‘ unimportant matters,’ 

II. Under the second head may be placed the different hypoth- 
eses which assume various Degrees of Inspiration ; the Divine 
influence by which the sacred writers were actuated having been 
universal, but unequally distributed. ‘The tendency of all such 
hypotheses—for even their authors allow that as hypotheses 
nlone can they be regarded—is to fine down to the minutest point, 
if not altogether to deny, the agency of the Holy Spirit in certain 
portions of the Bible. ‘ What the extent of the Inspiration was 
in each case” (1 quote the words of Bishop Daniel Wilson, who 
maintains this view of various ‘‘ Degrees” of Inspiration)—‘“* What 
the extent of the Inspiration was in each case, we need not, in- 
deed ws cannot, determine. We infer from the uniform language 
of the New Testament that in each case such assistance, and only 
such assistance, was afforded as the exigencies of it required. 
Where nature ended, and Inspiration began, it is not for man to 
say.” * 

Ul. The third head comprises Schleiermacher and his follow- 


1 For some account of the modern theories of Inspiration, see Appendix C. 

2 Cf. Ebrard. “ Kritik der Evang, Geschichte.” ler Th. 5, 63. 

3. “The Evidences of Christianity, by Daniel Wilson.” London, 1828, vol. i. p. 506. 
The “ Degrees” of Inspiration usually laid down are as follows: “ΒΥ the Inspiration 
of Suggestion, is meant, such communications of the Holy Spirit as suggested and dic- 
tated minutely every part of the truths delivered. The Inspiration of Direction, is 
meant, of such assistance as left the writers to describe the matter revealed in their 
own way, directing only the mind in the exercise of its powers. The Inspiration of 
Elevation added a greater strength and vigor to the efforts of the mind, than the 
writers could otherwise have attained. The Inspiration of Superintendency was that 
watchful care which preserved generally from anything being put down derogatory 
{7 the revelation with which it was connected.”—Jbid. p. 508. 


LECT. 1.} THE QUESTION STATED, 35 


ers ; the Shibboleth of whose school, in brief, is this, ‘ The letter 
killeth, the spirit giveth life.’’ The idea of Revelation, according 
to Schleiermacher, is confined to the person of Christ :—the no- 
tion of Inspiration he considers to be one of completely subordinate 
importance in Christianity ;* the sole power which the Bible 
ἐς possesses of conveying a Revelation to us, consisting in its aiding 
in the awakenment and elevation of our religious consciousness ; 
in its presenting to us a mirror of the history of Christ ; in its 
depicting the intense religious life of His first followers ; and in 
giving us the letter through which the spirit of truth may be 
brought home in vital experience to the human heart.” * 

I now proceed to that view of Inspiration, to establish which 
will be the object of the present inquiry. In entering upon the 
task my first object will be to look steadily at the facts of the 
case, which, while it is our duty never to distort or exaggerate 
them, it is equally our duty to recognise, and estimate at their 
true value. The Bible, I have already observed, consists of both 
a Divine and a Human element. This leading fact may be re- 
garded as the first of the two Conditions of our problem ; a Con- 
dition which can only be satisfied by showing how the two ele- 
ments may be combined. According to the former of the systems 
to which I have just referred, the Human element is entirely lost 
sight of. On its principles the sacred writers, on receiving the 
Divine impulse, resigned both mind and body to God, who in- 
fluenced and guided both at His sole pleasure ; the human agent 
contributing, the while, no more than the pen of the scribe: in a 
word, he was the pen, not the penman, of the Spirit." Now, cer- 


1 Quinet, in the essay already referred to, well describes the result of this principle 
when so applied: ‘‘ Mais qui ne voit qu’ a son tour l’esprit en grandissant peut tuer. 
et remplacer la lettre ?” 

2“ Was die Hingebung betrifft, so hat dieser Begriff im Christenthum eine durch- 
aus untergeordnete Bedeutung. Denn eine Beziehung desselben auf Christum findet 
gar nicht statt, indem die gottliche Offenbarung durch ihn immer, wie sie auch gee 
dacht werde, mit seiner ganzen Hxistenz identisch gedacht wird. und nicht als frag- 
mentarisch in zerstreuten Augenblicken erscheinend.”—Der Christliche Glaube. ler 
Band. s. 97. 

ὃ This statement of Schleiermacher’s system is taken from Mr. Morell’s exposition 
of his views on Inspiration, ‘‘ Philosophy of Religion,” pp. 143-4. 

“CL Westcott’s “Gospel Harmony,” p. 6. Thus, even Hooker in his first sermon 
on Jude, 17-21, having quoted 1 Cor. ii. 12, 13, gives expression to the following sen- 
timent: ‘‘ This is that which the Prophets mean by those books written full within 
and without; which books were so often delivered them to eat, not because God fed 
them with ink and paper, but to teach us, that, so often as He employed them in this 
heavenly work they neither spake nor wrote any word of their own, but uttered syl- 
lable by syllable as the Spirit put it into their mouths.”—Vol. iii. p. 662, Keble’s Ed. 


36 THE QUESTION STATED. [LEOT. I. 


tain phenomena, obvious of themselves, and brought still more 
prominently forward by the progress of criticism, demand expla- 
nation upon this, as upon every other, theory. The varieties in 
diction which meet the student as he examines the original text 
of Scripture, arising partly from the changes undergone by the 
Hebrew language during the lapse of ages,’ partly from the nat- 
ural genius and personal peculiarities of the writers of either 
Testament ;* the differences in point of style which are so appar- 
ent between the prophetical and historical parts of Scripture*® as 
well as between the different prophets and historians themselves ; 
—all these are matters of which some account must be given, 
The maintainers of the theory of Inspiration which we are now 
considering, either offer no explanation at all of such phenomena 
—except by employing some rather general metaphors‘4—or are 
reduced to the necessity of putting forward another hypothesis, 
which, although in one point of view a real advance in the true 
direction, yet closely resembles the doctrine of the Docete of old.’ 
It is asserted that the Holy Ghost merely “‘ accommodated Him- 
seli” to the different peculiarities of the sacred writers.’ An ad- 
mission of the originator of this hypothesis exhibits its insufficien- 
cy. ‘The Holy Ghost,” he observes, “inspired His amanuenses 
with those expressions which they would have employed had they 
been left to themselves.”" It is, perhaps, unnecessary to remark, 


But see the context for some profound remarks on one of the most obscure parts of 
this subject. 

1 Cf. Havernick’s “ Kinleitung.” ler. Theil, 1te Abtheil. 2er Kap., ὃ 34, 5. 225 ff. 

3. ἘΦ g. The use, by S. John alone, of the term παροιμία, the other Evangelists em- 
ploying the word παραβολή. 

8H. g. Compare Isa. xxxvi., and Jer. xxxvi., with other portions of these books. 

‘“ Andr. Rivetus Jsag. ad Script. S. cap. ii. T. ii. Opp. f. 858, simili a perito scriba 
petito illustrat, qui diversis calamis commode utitur, aliquando subtilioribus et magis 
acutis, aliquando crassioribus et obtusis, ubi literze quidem et scriptura scribze in soli- 
dum tribuenda, ductus autem vel subtilior vel crassior, indoli et habitui pennz vel 
gracilioris, vel crassioris est adscribendus.”—Carpzovius, Critica Sacra Vet. Test. p. 59. 

® The Docetee held that all relating to Christ’s human appearance was a mere vis- 
ion; and hence their name. The idea thus applied was of long standing among the 
Jews. Thus Raphael tells Tobit, “ All these days I did appear unto you; but I did 
neither eat nor drink, but ye did see a vision.” —Tobit xii. 19. 

Neander, in his remarks on the Docete, observes: ‘‘The opinion corresponding to 
the fantastie tendency of the East, and which had long obtained currency among the 
Jews, that a higher spirit has the power of representing himself to the eye of sense in 
various deceptive forms, which possess no reality, was transferred to Christ.”—Aligem. 
Geschichte der Kirche, 2te Aufl. ler Band. s. 667. 

5 “Fatendum est Spiritum S. in suggerendis verborum conceptibus accommodasse 
se ad indolem et conditionem amanuensium.”—Baier, Prol. ii. § 7, note g, quoted by 
Twesten, Vorlesungen, ler Band, s. 418. 

7 “ Ha verba Spiritus S. amanuensibus inspiravit, quibus alias usi fuissent, si sibi 
fuissent relicti.”—Quenstedt, cap. iv. p. 76. Rudelbach, who states that Musaus first 


LECT. I.] THE QUESTION STATED. 37 


that this wholly hypothetical statement assumes an exercise of 
the Divine agency for which no motive can be assigned, or end 
pointed out ; while it seems impossible to reconcile this phase of 
the purely τς or as it has, of late years, been termed, Me- 
chanical, theory of Inspiration with the highest aim of tee 
the το and enlightenment of the faculties of man. 

Are we then compelled, by this failure of the theory before 
us, to solve the difficulties of the question, to accept as true that 
other system which ascribes undue influence to the Human ele- 
ment of the Scriptures? Assuredly not ; our task is rather to 
make our own those portions of the truth which each system may 
contain. 

In whatever manner we conceive the Bible to convey to us a 
Revelation, we must, from the nature of the case, recognise its 
two elements. Without the Divine element it would cease to be 
a Revelation ; without the Human, the communication from God 
would have been confined to the individual to whom it was orig- 
inally made. The whole analogy of nature, too, teaches us that 
God accomplishes all His ends by the intervention of certain 
means. Here, the end is the conveyance of Divine truth ; while 
the means consist in exhibiting that truth in those aspects under 
which alone it can be grasped by man. That it should be possi- 
ble for man to apprehend it, it must present itself allied to 
human conceptions, and clothed in human language.’ To attain 
this object, the same power which gave the message selected the 
messenger ; and the grounds of this selection we can clearly dis- 
cern to have been the natural capacities and the opportunities, as 
well as the traits of individual character, which marked each sacred 
writer. Moses was skilled in all the wisdom of the Egyptians ; 
and §. Paul, who had been the pagan scholar in the school of Tar- 
sus, and the Jewish scholar in the schools of Jerusalem, while by 
his Jewish learning he could show from the Scripture that Jesus 


started this idea, entertains a far more favorable view of it than I have been able to 
form. It is a conception, he remarks, ‘“‘ welche die tiefsten Blicke in den ganzen Or- 
ganismus der Offenbarung verrath, und mit Recht die Theodicee der Inspiration ge- 
nannt werden mag. "__Die Lehre von der Insp. 4es Kap. s. 24. 

* “The narrowness and imbecility of the human mind being such as scarcely to 
comprehend or attain a clear idea of any part of the Divine nature by its utmost ex- 
ertions; God has condescended, in a manner, to contract the infinity of His glory, 
and to exhibit it to our understandings under such imagery ag our feeble optics are 
capable of contemplating.” —Lowth, Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews, Lect, 
¥xxi. 2d ed. vol. iL p. 312. 


88 THE QUESTION STATED. [ΠΡΟΤῚ L 


was Christ, could also appeal to the hearts of his Gentile hearers 
in the words of their own philosophers and poets. No less con- 
ducive to the successful communication of Divine truth was the 
calling into activity the individual peculiarities of the agents thus 
chosen. The unbending intellect of Paul; the practical temper- 
ament of James; the heart which throbbed alike with zeal and 
love in the bosom of John, were chosen, in their turn, to convey 
the message best suited to each ;—while the principle which 
linked together the several parts of the chain of doctrine thus 
called into being was the one Divine Spirit which selected, and 
guided, and inspired each writer. What just reason iadeed can 
possibly be assigned for supposing that the Divine power should 
have obliterated the peculiar characteristics of each before it 
qualified him for his task ? Must we not rather assume that, 
when the individual was chosen, there were certain grounds ex- 
isting in his nature, in consequence of which the lot fell upon 
him ? Such peculiarities of character, therefore, are rather to be 
regarded as the condition of the particular form under which the 
Divine influence willed to exhibit itself in operation, And thus, 
the actuation of the Spirit will not consist in the exclusion of the 
Human element, but rather in illuminating and exalting it, ac- 
cording to its several varieties, for the attainment of the end pro- 
posed.’ Shall we, then, in consequence of this variety of means, 
and diversity of agencies, refuse to recognise the power which 
stamps its unity and confers its vital energy upon the whole ? On 
grounds equally appropriate here did the Christian Apologist 
maintain before the masters of the world the Personality and the 
Majesty of God. In opposition to the prevailing Pantheism of 
his age, he appeals to the structure and the harmony of the uni- 
verse, “1 adore,” said Athenagoras, “‘the Being who harmonized 
the strains, and leads the melody, not the instrument which He 
plays. What umpires at the Games, omitting to crown the min- 
strel, place the garland upon his lyre P”” 


1Cf Steudel’s excellent treatise, ‘Ueber Inspiration der Apostel.” ‘‘ Tiibinger 
Zeitachrift fiir Theologie.” 1832. 2te Heft. s 117. 

2°Eu τοίνυν ἐμμελὲς ὁ κόσμος ὄργανον καὶ κινοῦμενον ἐν ῥυθμῷ, τὸν ἁρμοσάμενον καὶ 
πλήσσοντα τοὺς φθόγγους, καὶ τὸ σύμφωνον ἐπάδοντα μέλος, οὐ τὸ ὄργανον, προσκυνῶ, 
’Ovd? γὰρ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀγωνιστῶν, παραλιπόντες ὁι ἀθλοθέται τοὺς κιθαριστὰς, τὰς κιθάρας 
στεφανοῦσιν avtav.—Legatio pro Christianis, cap. Xvi. p. 291. 

This Apology was presented by Athenagoras (cwrc. A.D. 177) to the Emperor 
Marcus Aurelius and his son Commodus. Guericke (‘‘De Schola Alexandriz,” p. 22" 


LECT 1.] THE QUESTION STATED. 39 


According to the view here taken, and which has been termed 
the “ Dynamical” theory of Inspiration,—or that which .mplies 
such a Divine influence as employs man’s faculties according to 
their natural laws,—man is not considered as being in any sense 
the cause or the originator of the Revelation of which God alone is 
the source, but human agency is regarded as the condition under 
which the Revelation becomes known to others. Nature itself 
supplies a striking analogy to this species of co-operation. When 
the principle of life has been communicated to any portion of un- 
organized matter, the power which animates receives, indeed, its 
condition from the matter to be animated, but in no sense can 
we ascribe its source to the inorganic mass to which it is annexed. 
Nevertheless the further development of that which has once re- 
ceived the vital influence admits of no separation between the 
purely passive matter and the principle of life, which alone is act- 
ive. Or, to take an illustration from the province of theology :— 
in Regeneration it is allowed by all that Divine Grace is the sole 
influence which operates at the instant when Regeneration takes 
place. Afterwards it is the joint influence which co-operates with 
the human powers and human will.’ From this view, then, it 
results that that peculiar, natural type, according to which each 
sacred writer was moulded at his creation, was assimilated, as it 
were, by the power of Inspiration, and appropriated by the Spirit ; 
while, at the same time, the Spiritual Influence is no more to be 
confounded with the tokens of individual character than it is to. 
be identified with the essence of the natural life. In short, the 
Divine and Human elements, mutually interpenetrating and com- 
bined, form one vital, organic whole,—not mechanically, still less 
ideally, but, as it has been termed, Dynamically united.’ So far 
as to the first Condition of our problem. 

The second, and no less important Condition, is supplied by a 
fact which must have forced itself in some shape or other upon 
the attention of every reader of the Bible, and which presents 
another phase of its Human element. Certain portions of the 
Bible are, strictly speaking, Revelations ; that is, such as, from 


mentioxs that Philippus Sidetes alleges that this work was dedicated to the Emperors 
Hadrian and Antoninus Pius. At all events it was composed in the latter half of the 
second century. 

1 See Twesten, ‘‘ Vorlesungen,” ler Band, 8. 418. 

3 Cf Beck’s “ Propadeutische Entwicklung,” s. 240. 


40 THE QUESTION STATED. [LECT. 1. 


their supernatural character or the circumstances of the writer 
who records them, could not have been known to him without a 
specia. communication from heaven. Other portions, again, are 
not of this nature. The historical incidents, forexample, recorded 
in both the Old and New Testament were such as must frequently 
have been familiar to the sacred writers, either from their own 
observation, or from sources which were at their command: and 
this very fact, like their individual peculiarities, is employed by 
the Holy Spirit as a vehicle of truth and a ground for conviction. 
This may be distinctly seen from the case of 8. John, who thus 
opens his first Kpistle: ‘‘ That which was from the beginning, 
which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which 
we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word 
of life, * * * that which we have seen and heard, declare we 
unto you.” On this fact, which cannot be gainsayed, rests a 
distinction which claims particular attention, as it forms a lead- 
ing idea of the theory adopted in the present inquiry. The dis- 
tinction is that between Revelation and Inspiration.’ 

By Revelation I understand a direct communication from God 
to man, either of such knowledge as man could not of himself 
attain to, because its subject-matter transcends human sagacity 
or human reason (such, for example, were the prophetical an- 
nouncements of the future, and the peculiar doctrines of Chris- 
tianity), or which (although it might have been attaimed in the 
ordinary way) was not, in point of fact, from whatever cause, 
known to the person who received the Revelation.” By Inspira- 


* Sontag (‘‘ Doctrina Inspirationis,” p. 134), states that this distinction was first 
introduced by Quenstedt. This is an error. The earliest work in which I have no- 
ticed an express allusion to the subject is that of Melchior Canus (obit, an. 1560). 
“De Locis Theologicis, ” Colon. 1605 :— 

“Non enim asserimus, per immediatam Spiritus Sancti revelationem, que quidem 
proprié revelatio dicenda sit, quamlibet Scripturee Sacre partem fuisse editam. Quin 
Lucas, que ab A postolis accepit, ea scripto ipse mandavit, ut in Evangelii sui procemio 
testatur. Et Marcum, que a Petro didicerat, rogatum a discipulis scripsisse. * * * 
Sive ergo Matthzeus et J oannes, sive Marcus et Lucas, quamvis illi visa, hi audita ree 
ferrent, non egebant quidem nova Spiritus Sancti revelatione, egebant tamen peculiari 
Spiritus Sancti directione.”—Lib. ii. cap. xviii. p. 126. 

I conceive that Origen has clearly noticed the distinction in question in a well- 
known passage in his commentary on 8. John (Opp. tom. iv. p. 4). On this point see 
Appendix ©. I may observe that I have not been able to procure or consult a work 
constantly referred to as fully discussing this subject, viz., Baumgarten’s treatise “‘ De 
discrimine Revelationis et Inspirationis.” Hal. 1745. 

° This latter point will be illustrated by an incident in the history of Elisha, stated 
in the fourth chapter of the second Book of Kings, as contrasted with what is told of 
tk2 prophet Ahijah in the fourteenth chapter of the first Book of Kings: 

“gud when she came to the man of God to the hill she caught him by the feet: 


LECT. 1.} THE QUESTION STATED. 41 


tion, on the other hand, I understand that actuating energy of 
the Holy Spirit, in whatever degree or manner it may have been 
exercised, guided by which the human agents chosen by God 
have officially proclaimed His will by word of mouth, or have 
committed to writing the several portions of the Bible.’ I re- 
peat, in whatever degree or manner this actuation by the Holy 
Spirit may have been exercised: for it should never be forgotten 
that the real question with which our inquiry is concerned is the 
result of this Divine influence as presented to us in the Holy 
Scriptures, no¢ the manner according to which it has pleased God 
that this result should be attained. Moses unquestionably re- 
ceived more abundant tokens of the Divine favor than Ezra, or 


but Gehazi came near to thrust her away. And the man of God said, Let her alone, 
for her soul is vexed within’her; and the Lord hath hid it from me, and hath not 
told me.”—2 Kings, iv. 27. 

“And Jeroboam’s wife arose, and went to Shiloh, and came to the house of Ahi- 
jah. But Ahijah could not see, for his eyes were set by reason of his age. And the 
Lord said unto Ahijah, Behold the wife of Jeroboam cometh to ask a thing of thee 
for her son, for he is sick: thus and thus shalt thou say unto her: for it shall be, when 
she cometh in, that she shall feign herself to be another woman.”—1 Kings, xiv. 4, 5. 

1 Understanding the several portions of the Bible, whether they consist of actual 
Revelations, in the strict sense of the term, or of moral teaching, or of mere historical 
details. Thus, the Revelation of the Law from Sinai, and the facts connected with the 
wanderings of the Israelites, were alike recorded under the influence of Inspiration. 
Or, again, the facts connected with the personal history of Job, the words of God 
Himself from “out of the whirlwind,” the sayings of the Patriarch, and the reasoning 
of his friends, were all committed to writing under the actuation of the Holy Ghost,— 
although “the Lord said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, 
and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of Me the thing that is right, as 
my servant Job hath.”—Job, xlii. 7. Indeed, it is plain that neglecting to attend to 
this application of the term Inspiration is to overlook the design of the Scriptures as 
defined by S. Paul: “ Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for 
our learning that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have 
hope.”—Rom. xy. 4. 

Mr. Coleridge’s “ Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit” afford a pregnant illustration 
of this neglect. He is throughout haunted by the belief that no other view of Inspi- 
ration is conceivable than the “mechanical” theory in its baldest form. His remarks, 
consequently, tend to subvert the entire authority of the Bible. If the reader will 
bear in mind the distinction which I have drawn between Revelation and Inspiration, 
and will also substitute for the phrase ‘dictated by” in the following extract, the 
words “committed to writing under the guidance of ’—the objection which it ex- 
presses will appear absolutely pointless: —‘‘ Yet one other instance, and let this be 
the crucial test of the Doctrine. Say that the Book of Job was [dictated by] an in- 
fallible Intelligence. Then re-peruse the book, and still, as you proceed, try to apply 
the tenet: try if you can even attach any sense or semblance of meaning to the 
speeches which you are reading. What! were the hollow truisms, the unsufficing 
half-truths, the false assumptions and malignant insinuations of the supercilious big- 
ots, who corruptly defended the truth :—were the impressive facts, the piercing out- 
cries, the pathetic appeals, and the close and powerful reasoning with which the poor 
sufferer—smarting at once from his wounds, and from the oil of vitriol which the or- 
thodox liars for God were dropping into them—impatiently, but uprightly and ho- 
lily controverted this truth, while in will and in spirit he clung to it ;—were both 
[dictated by] an infallible Intelligence ?”—Let#er iii. p. 38. 


42 THE QUESTION STATED. [LECT. I. 


Nehemiah, or th2 author of the Books of Chronicles; but this 
does not render that element of the Bible, in composing which 
Moses was the agent, one whit more true or more accurrate in its 
details than the writings of the others.’ The Disciple whom 
Jesus loved, and who reclined upon His bosom, enjoyed person- 
ally far higher privileges than 8. Mark or 8. Luke. But still 
this affection of his Divine Master does not render 8, John’s 
Gospel, in one single feature, a more trustworthy vehicle of that 
portion of Divine truth which it conveys than the records of 
those who were but the companions of the Apostles. 

It has been already observed, that Revelation and Inspiration 
are also to be distinguished by the sources from which they pro- 
ceed,—Revelation being the peculiar function of the Eternal 
Word ; Inspiration the result of the agency of the Holy Spirit. 
Their difference, in short, is specific, and not merely one of de 
gree :’ a point which is amply confirmed by the consideration, 
that either of these Divine influences may be exerted, although 
the other be not called into action. The Patriarchs received 
Revelations, but they were not inspired to record them ; the 
writer of the Acts of the Apostles was inspired for his task, but 
we are not told that he ever enjoyed a Revelation.’ But although 


? The importance of the distinction on which I am insisting will be further appar- 
ent from the following statement of Dr. Pye Smith: “ Those who affirm in a general 
and indiscriminate manner, that all and every the parts of the Old Testament were 
immediately dictated by [see last note] the Holy Spirit, and that, to each the same 
kind of inspiration belongs, appear to me to go farther than the evidence warrants, 
and to lay the cause of revealed religion under the feet of its enemies.”—Scripture Tes- 
timony to the Messiah, vol. i. Notes, p. 39. 

* This view differs altogether from the popular employment of the terms, according 
to which their distinction is wholly lost sight of. Thus Mr. Morell writes:— 

‘‘All Revelation, as we showed, implies two conditions: it implies, namely, an 
intelligible object presented, and a’given power of recipiency in the subject: and in 
popular language, when speaking of the manifestation of Christianity to the world, we 
confine the term Revelation to the former of these conditions, and appropriate the 
word Inspiration to designate the latter. According to this convenient distinction, 
therefore, we may say, that revelation, in the Christian sense, indicates that act of 
Divine power by which God presents the realities of the spiritual world immediately 
to the human mind; while inspiration denotes that especial influence wrought upon 
the faculties of the subject, by virtue of which he is able to grasp these realities in 
their perfect fulness and integrity. God made a revelation of Himself to the world 
in Jesus Christ; but it was the inspiration of the Apostles which enabled them clearly 
to discern it. Here, of course, the objective arrangements and the subjective influ- 
ences perfectly blend in the production of the whole result; so that, whether we 
speak of Revelation or of Inspiration, we are, in fact, merely looking at two different 
sides of that same great act of Divine beneficence and mercy, by which the truths of 
Christianity have been brought home to the human consciousness. Revelation and 
Inspiration then indicate one united process.” —Philosophy of Religion, p. 150. 

* So again, we have no reason to suppose that when Samuel was composing the 


LECT. 1.7 THE QUESTION STATED, 43 


thus specifically distinct, a fixed relation subsisting between the 
two ideas, as applied to the Bible, must be noticed. It is plain 
that, without Inspiration a Divine communication would have 
been, in a measure, useless as a guide and a rule ; for without 
such Spiritual illumination how could we be assured that the 
Revelation would be correctly transmitted to others, or even 
rightly apprehended by the recipients themselves ? Consider a 
single case, which exhibits the relation of the two ideas. Certain 
Tyrian prophets, mentioned in the twenty-first chapter of the 
Acts, ‘‘ said to Paul, through the Spirit, that he should not go 
up to Jerusalem.” To them had been revealed what the Holy 
Ghost was witnessing “‘in every city” namely, that bonds and 
afflictions awaited 8. Paul in Jerusalem. These prophets, how- 
ever, enjoyed no Inspiration ; they adulterated the Revelation 
which they had received with human wishes and human feelings, 
and thus directly contradicted the will of God, which the guid- 
ance of the Spirit enabled 8. Paul himself to understand and 
to obey. ‘‘ And now, behold! I go bound in the Spirit unto 
Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there, 
save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city that bonds 
and afflictions abide me.” 

But whatever may be the result of this distinction between 
Revelation and Inspiration, as applied to the contents of the 
Bible ; in whatever manner we can satisfy ourselves that certain 
portions convey to us a message direct from heaven, or that 
others simply record historical facts which were naturally known 
to the writers,—it must ever be borne in mind that the true idea 
of Inspiration is altogether objective, extending to every portion 
of every book ; and that it stamps the Word of God, as such, 


book which bears his name, he received a renewal of the Revelations which God hat 
made to him in his youth. 

Képpen (‘Die Bibel ein Werk der Géttlichen Weisheit,” 3te Aufl. 2er Band, 8. 
307) draws attention to a fallacious mode of reasoning often employed :—‘ In order 
to prove that the books of the Bible have been written under Divine Inspiration, ap- 
peal is sometimes made to the extraordinary Revelations which are here and there an- 
nounced in the Bible; but this is plainly a false conclusion, and a weakness not to 
be concealed. Although God has revealed Himself to certain persons by means of a 
supernatural influence, the question, notwithstanding all this, still remains,—-how has 
the Divine influence exerted itself in the composition of the Bible?” For an instance 
of an express Revelation being intermingled with inspired teaching, see 1 Tim. iv. 1. 

1 Acts, xx. 23. 

s See Olshausen, in loc. Also Storr and Flatt, “ Biblical Theology,” Part 
iii. § 11. 


44 THE QUESTION STATED. [LECT. t 


in the most profound sense of the term ; thereby distinguishing 
it from every thing which is merely human. Inspiration, in 
short, as the attestation of God’s Spirit, in, through, and for 
man, belongs essentially to the organism of Scripture as the 
record of Revelation; and is at length unfolded to us in its full 
bearings in that department of it where God reveals Himself as 
the Spirit. 

In theological language the ordinary operations of the Holy 
Ghost are divided into preventing, operating, co-operating; a 
division which may help to guide us in our conception of the 
manner in which the sacred writers were influenced : although 
thezr Inspiration (I would observe in passing) differs, not merely 
in degree, but absolutely in kind, from that ordinary operation 
of the Spirit usually called by the same name.’ We may dis- 
tinguish in the first place, the stage in which the Holy Spirit 
prevents; that is, prompts to the task of writing: the outward 
channel through which such suggestion was usually conveyed 
being the various occasions or motives which, in what men call 
the ordinary course of things, have led to the composition of 
most of the books of the Bible.” The task having been thus 
undertaken, in the second stage the Holy Spirit operates ; that 
is, selects from the mass of materials which were at the writer’s 
command,—whatever may have been their character, whether 
naturally known, or supernaturally revealed—and so disposes the 
course of his labors, that 8. Paul could say of certain parts of 
the Jewish history that “ they were written for our admonition.’”” 
In the third stage, the Holy Spirit co-operates with the natural 
faculties of the mind, in the manner already dwelt upon when 
considering the first Condition of our problem ; the result of this 
co-operation being the different books which in their combination 
constitute the Bible, and which have been molded into unity by 
the power of the Spirit. 

And here we shall most fitly advert to the language em- 
ployed under the influence of Inspiration. In the common 
course of things men of ordinary capacity have the power of 
clothing their thoughts and feeling in appropriate words ; and 
from the very nature of the case we cannot but believe that the 
words adopted by the sacred writers must, in like manner, be 


1See infra, Lecture v. 2 See infra, Lecture iv. 51 Cornexcel le 


LECT. 1.} THE QUESTION STAYED, 45 


the adequate expression of their inward conceptions, and, there- 
fore, of that internal life produced by the Holy Spirit. But, 
furthermore, the same Divine power which breathed this life into 
the soul must be regarded as the vital principle of the language 
which represents it. To this utterance of that Spirit, Whose 
glance penetrates the universe, Whose intimations extend to 
every age, and apply to every circumstance with a fullness and 
definiteness which embrace time and eternity—to this utterance 
of the Spirit there is essentially appropriated that pregnant style 
which in a few syllables conveys such infinitude of meaning,’ 
which is unexhausted by all commentators, and which possesses 
that marvellous “capacity of translation into any dialect which 
has a living and human quality.”* The opinion, that the sub- 
ject-matter alone of the Bible proceeded from the Holy Spirit, 
while its language was left to the unaided choice* of the various 
writers, amounts to that fantastic notion which is the grand fal- 
lacy of many theories of Inspiration ; namely, that two different 
Spiritual agencies were in operation, one of which produced the 
phraseology in its outward form, while the other created within 
the soul the conceptions and thoughts of which such phraseology 
was the expression. The Holy Spirit, on the contrary, as the 
productive principle, embraces the entire activity of those whom 
He inspires, rendering their language the word of God.* The 
entire substance and form of Scripture, whether resulting from 
Revelation or natural knowledge, are thus blended together into 
one harmonious whole : direct communications of religious truth, 
as well as the inferences which the sacred writers deduced there- 
from ; the lessons to be learned, whether from exhibitions of 
miraculous power, or from the facts of history; such matters, 
together with all the collateral details of Scripture, have been 
assimilated into one homogeneous organism by the vital energy 
of the Spirit. 


MA TO μιᾶς λέξεως ἔνεστιν ὁλόκληρον évpetv vodv.—S. Chrysost. Hom. |. in Joan. tom. 
viil. p. 293. 

2, D. Maurice. ‘The Kingdom of Christ,” vol. ii. p. 246. 

> An opinion held by Seb. Castalio, Episcopius, Geo. Calixtus, &c., who assert 
“res inspiravit Deus, voces a scriptore sunt.” But see the remarks of Beck, “ Propa- 
deutische Entwicklung,” s. 240. 

4 “ For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because when ye received 
the word of God which ye heard o. us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as 
it ig in truth, the word of God.”—1 Thess. ii. 13. Cf iv. 1, 2, 8. 


46 THE QUESTION STATED. [LECT, L 


Such is the aspect under which I propose, in the present in- 
vestigation, to consider the question of the inspiration of Holy 
Scripture. In order to establish this theory, it will be necessary 
to prove that the two Conditions of the problem which it involves 
have been satisfied ; one of these Conditions being defined in 
that expression of 8. Paul which forms the text of this Dis- 
course, ‘‘ We are laborers together with God ;” the other being 
presented by that distinction pointed out between the ideas of 
Revelation and Inspiration. The proof must rest, as in all de- 
partments of knowledge, upon a patient examination and induc- 
tion of facts; and such is the task which lies before us. Pre- 
viously to entering upon that proof, however, I would refer, once 
for all, to a line of argument which has often been adopted, and 
which has been as unduly exalted on the one hand, as it has been 
the subject of unmerited ridicule on the other.’ I allude to what 


1 Thus it is laid down in Art. Iv. of the Gallican Confession of 1561 :— 

“Nous connoisons ces livres estre canoniques et reigle tres certaine de nostre Foy 
1on tant par le commun accord et consentement de l’Hglise, que par le tesmoignage 
γὉ intérieure persuasion du S. Esprit, qui les nous fait discerner d’avec les autres livres 
Veclésiastiques.” 

So also in the “ Westminster Confession,” c. i. § 4, 5: 

“The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and 
ebeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or Church, but wholly upon 
sod (who is Truth itself), the author thereof; and therefore it is to be received be- 
cause it is the Word of God. * * * Our full persuasion and assurance of the in- 
fallible truth and divine authority thereof is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit 
bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts.” 

On the other hand, J. D. Michaelis writes as follows :— 

“An inward sensation of the effects of the Holy Ghost, and the consciousness of 
the utility of these writings in improving the heart and purifying our morals, are cri- 
terions as uncertain as the foregoing. With respect to that inward sensation, I must 
confess that I have never experienced it in the whole course of my life; nor are those 
persons who have felt it either deserving of envy or nearer the truth, since the Mu- 
hammedan feels it as well as the Christian.”—Marsh’s Michaelis, vol. i. part i. p. 77. 

Hofmann justly observes:—‘‘ Ob ein Wort der Wahrheit, zu welchem sich der Geist 
bekennt, kanonisch sey oder nicht, Wort der heiligen Schrift oder Wort der Ueber- 
lieferung, dariiber sagt jenes Zeugniss des Geistes nichts, und nicht blos einem J. D. 
Michaelis nichts, sondern auch einem Luther beim Briefe Jacobi und der Apokalypsis.” 
— Weissagung und Erfillung, i.s. 44. Hofmann’s allusion to Luther suggests at once 
the great danger of this exclusive reliance on “the witness of the Spirit” as the foun- 
dation of our belief in the Bible. ‘‘ Luther,” observes Olshausen, in his treatise on 
the “ Genuineness of the Writings of the New Testament,” “‘shows himself a deter- 
mined opponent of John’s Revelation. He says, in his Preface to it: ‘There are 
various and abundant reasons why I regard this book as neither apostolical nor pro- 
phetic. * * * But let every man think of it as his spirit prompts him. My 
apirit cannot adapt itself to the production, and this is reason enough for me why I 
should not esteem it very highly.’”—Clarke’s For. Theol. Lib. p. cv. For a more 
detailed account of Luther’s opinion on this subject, see Appendix C. The distinc- 
tion which is to be made between erroneous views respecting the Canon of Scripture 
and erroneous views respecting Inspiration is one which deserves particular attention. 
See infra, Lecture ii. p. 71, note, the remarks as to Theodore of Mopsuestia. 


LECT. 1.] THE QUESTION STATED. 47 


is usually termed “the witness of the Spirit,” or the testimony 
which the Holy Ghost Himself conveys to each reader of the 
Scriptures. The fundamental defect of this mode of upholding 
Inspiration appears to consist, not in the conception itself, but 
in the place assigned to it in the chain of Christian evidences, 
when employed to prove, and not to confirm,—when addressed to 
the judgment of the understanding, not to the affections of the 
heart. If offered as the sole, or even leading proof, we can 
scarcely feel surprise at its rejection by the sceptic or the un- 
believer. To the intellect of such persons, the alleging such a 
fact, as proof, must be absolutely unintelligible. As well might 
any of us discourse with the blind upon the varieties of colours ; 
or a being of some higher order offer to our minds some new idea 
for the reception of which the proper sense was wanting. The 
Bible must be recognised as Divine, before such a witness can be 
called in confirmation of previous evidence. But to the Christian, 
who, with willing mind and humble acquiescence, accepts the 
Scriptures as the word of God, this testimony of the Holy Spirit 
is a precious treasure. The proof is one which is even sealed 
with the promise of Christ. It results from no chain of elaborate 
argumentation ; it rests upon that living and intuitive syllogism 
of the heart, “If any man is willing to do His will, he shall 
know of the doctrine, whether it be of God.”* The Spirit which 
breathes the principle of Christian life into the being of man 
produces, as we read the words of the sacred writers, this recog- 
nition of His own former agency ; and unconsciously, like the 
statue of ancient story, the soul makes symphony when the ray 
touches it from above.” 

And here, if one might, venture to be eclectic as to any part 
of Holy Scripture, and to point out any portion of it which 
most fitly illustrates this idea, we may, perhaps, safely refer to 
that discourse of the Lord, beginning at the fourteenth and end- 
ing with the seventeenth chapter of 8. John’s Gospel: that 


1 Rav τις θέλῃ τὸ θέλ. abt ποιεῖυ. S. John, vii. 17. Cf Nitzsch, “System der 
Christ]. Lehre,” ler Th. ὃ 32, who justly observes that in this point of view Christian- 
ity can not be a matter of demonstration. 

2 “ Why has the Holy Scripture its peculiar adaptation to man’s nature, save be- 
cause it is His Word, after whose image man was originally fashioned, and who is 
Hiaself the ‘true light which lighteth every man?’ Therefore, when we read it, we 
recognise the higher rule of our original composition.”—Wilberforce, On the Incarna- 
tion, 2d ed. p. 481. 


48 THE QUESTION STATED. [LEOT. L 


Holy of Holies, as it has been aptly termed, of Christ’s history ; 
that wonderful passage from every line of which shines forth the 
Divinity of Him who spake, though each syllable be tinged with 
the sadness of a soul which even now gazed full upon the agony 
in the Garden, and bore, in prospect, the crown of thorns—sy]- 
lables, too, which were uttered from the very shadow of the 
tomb! Who is there that peruses those solemn words, whose 
heart does not burn within him as each expression of human af- 
fection —that sympathy with His earthly brethren which every 
tone conveys—becomes the point of contact through which those 
Revelations of the Eternal Word reach the spirit of man ? Who 
is there that does not recognise the impress of the Divine nature 
in every sentence of that discourse, which, while it announces to 
the Disciples the sorrows of earth, at the same time pledges to 
them the aid and the joys of heaven: that discourse, so com- 
manding, while shaded with the gloom of human anguish; so 
sublime in its tenderness ; so majestic in its repose ? From this 
source still streams forth a light which illumines the Christian’s 
path, and cheers him on his pilgrimage ; and hence, too, if his 
trust be shaken, can he draw conviction unclouded and serene, 
When difficulties embarrass the reason, and perplexities entangle 
the intellect,—and who is that man over whose. understanding 
doubt has not at times cast its shadow, or whose faith the stern 
realities of life have not put to the trial >—the fainting soul will 
find its refuge in the words which introduce this series of promise 
and encouragement ; words which still whisper to our ear the 
same assurance which once supported the Apostle sinking in the 
wind-tossed sea, ‘‘ Let not your heart be troubled, ye believe in 
God, believe also in Me,” 


LECTURE IU. 


THE IMMEMORIAL DOCTRINE OF THE 
CHURCH OF GOD. 


“Scripture teacheth us that saving truth which God hath discovered unto the world 
by Revelation, and it presumeth us taught otherwise that itself is Divine and Sacred.”’ 
Hooker, Eccl. Pol. Ὁ. iii. ο, 8. 


Ἑρμηνεὺς yap ἐστιν ὁ ἸΙροφήτης, ἔνδοθεν ὑπηχοῦντος τὰ λεκτέα τοῦ Θεοῦ. 
ῬΗΠΟ, De Prem. et Pen. 


Ei & ἀκριβῶς χρὴ ἡμᾶς λέγειν τὰ πρὸς τὸν Κέζσον, οἰόμενον τὰ αὐτὰ ἡμῶς ᾿Ιουδαΐοις 
περὶ τῶν ἐγκειμένων δοξάζειν " φήσομεν ὅτι, τὰ μὲν θιβλία θείῳ γεγράφθαι Πνεύματι, 
ὁμολογοῦμεν ἀμφότεροι. 

ORIGENES, Cont. Cels. v. 60. 


“Quid est autem Scriptura Sacra nisi queedam Epistola omnipotentis Dei ad creatu- 
ram suam? * * * Imperator cceli, Dominus hominum et angelorum, pro vita tua 
tibi Suas Epistolas transmisit: et tamen, gloriose fili, easdem Epistolas ardenter legere 
negligis. Stude ergo, queso, et quotidie Creatoris tui verba meditare. Disce cor Dei 
in verbis Dei, ut ardentius ad eterna suspires, ut mens vextra ad coelestia gaudia majo: 
ribus desideriis accendatur.” 

5. Gruaor. M. Ep. xxxi. Ad Theodorum Meduwn. 


LECTURE II. 


THE IMMEMORIAL DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH 
OF GOD. 


WHAT ADVANTAGE THEN HATH THE JEW? OR WHAT PROFIT IS THERE OF OIROUM 
OISION? MUCH EVERY WAY: CHIEFLY, BECAUSE THAT UNTO THEM WERE COM- 
MITTED THE ORACLES OF GOD.—Fom. iii. 1, 2. 


WHEN intimating in this passage the leading prerogatives of 
the Jewish people, the Apostle employs a phrase,’ correctly ren- 
dered in our version by the word “ chiefly,” but which, if we 
look merely to the form of the expression, points to other ad- 
vantages which he had intended to name. His pausing, however, 
without pursuing the idea any further, proves how deeply 8 
Paul felt that αἰζ was in reality contained in that one privilege 
which he had particularized. The entire history of the ancient 
Church of God tells how this treasure was revered ; and that it 
had been guarded with the most scrupulous fidelity is evident, 
as well from the Apostle’s allusion in this place, as from the 
whole tone and tenor of the New Testament. 

To the Christian Church, in like manner, were confided, not 
only the new documents which were added to the Canon ;—the 
Scriptures of the Old Testament also were transferred to its 
care. That it was the privilege of the Christian Church, as it 
had been of the Jewish, to be the “‘ witness and keeper of Holy 
Writ,” and that to the chief officer in each of its divisions was 
intrusted the fulfilment of this commission, is proved by the ex- 
istence of a rite which has been retained in every branch of the 
Church Catholic since the second century. As our own Ordinal 
presents it, the words of Episcopal Consecration are immedi- 
ately followed by the delivery of the Bible into the hand of the 


1 Πρῶτον μέν. Cf. Olshausen’s remarks on this text. 
3 Art. xx. Eccles. Anglic. ‘ De Ecclesize Auctoritate.” 


52 THE IMMEMORIAL DOCTRINE [LECT. I. 


newly-made Bishop ; the Church symbolizing thereby two as- 
pects of the duty which he must discha-ge :—the maintenance 
of the doctrine, and the preservation of the record.’ 

When we consider, then, the fact, that to the Jewish and 
Christian Churches, respectively, and in their capacity of divinely 
instituted Societies, ‘ the oracles of God” have been committed, 
no inquiry respecting the subject of Inspiration can possess greater 
importance, than that which will exhibit the degree and kind of 
estimation in which the writings which contain those “ oracles,” 
have been always held, as well as the spirit in which the trust 
thus reposed has been discharged. This inquiry is to be dis- 
tinguished from the examination of that testimony which proves 
the genuineness and authenticity of the different parts of the 
Bible ;—although the two questions are often confounded. 
Greater clearness will also be attained, if it be kept apart from 
what are usually termed Christian evidences ; for these relate to 
the belief in the contents of the Scriptures, rather than to the 
nature of the agency employed in their composition. Its bear- 
ing, too, will be better understood when we reflect upon the 
manner in which opinions, such as we are about to consider, have 
influenced the actions of those who held them ; as also when we 
picture to ourselves the impression which would have been pro- 
duced upon our minds had the expression of those sentiments been 
less decided, orless peculiar. I propose in the present Discourse 
to give the leading outlines of the doctrine respecting the inspi- 
ration of the Bible held by the Jews who lived before the birth 
of Christ, or who were His contemporaries, as well as by the 


1 Immediately after the Imposition of Hands by the ‘‘ Archbishops and Bishops 
present * * * upon the head of the elected Bishop,” the Rubric of our Ordinal 
further directs—“ Then the Archbishop shall deliver him the Bible, saying: ‘Give 
heed unto reading, exhortation, and doctrine. Think upon the things contained in 
this Book,’” &¢., &e. 

The antiquity of this rite is proved by the words of the Apostolic Constitutions, 
lib. vill. cap. 4, περὶ χειροτονι ὧν. The direction there given is as follows: σιωπῆς 

GAM . γενομένης, εἷς τῶν πρώτων ἐπισκόπων ἅμα καὶ δυσὶν ἑτέροις, πλησίον τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου 
web ~ | ἑστὼς, τῶν λοιπῶν ἐπισκόπων καὶ πρεσβυτέρων σιωπῇ προσευχομένων, τῶν δὲ διακόνων 
ρος ΟΖ. τὰ θεῖα εὐαγγέλια ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ χειροτονουμένου κεφαλῆς ἀνεπτυγμένα κατεχόντων, Aeyé= 
yotda~ aL tw πρὸς Θεόν" Ὁ Ὧν, δέσποτα, κύριε, K. τ. A.—Cotelerius, t. i. p. 395. 
L, 2 AAA Gieseler, to whom I am indebted for this remark and reference, observes: ‘“ Dieser 
- “δῷ; Ritus scheint die Collation des Zeugnisses symbolisch dargestellt zu haben, und ent- 
ign »“/-4-stand wahrscheinlich, nachdem die schriftlichen Evangelien als heilige Schriften an 
ἘΣ /<>-die Stelle der Tradition gesetzt waren.”—Die Enistehung der schrifil. Hvangelien, 5. 171. 
-4#- 7 1 may add, that Gieseler employs this and kindred facts in order to develop his inge- 
-«- 4e¢/-nious argument in support of the genuineness of the Ignatian Epistles. 
2 εὐνεῖο Rte en FLO ὦ ret fase per o Pies hee ἘΣ Ps (ont Od cu dd, 


k-S <J RO ΟΣ Art, M oat, Lod-~" =< fate Mirae 
) εὐ, ΡῈ 
an Pil ΞΕ Bers 


Tay 


LECT. 11.] OF THE CHURCH OF GOD. 53 


Christian Church from the earliest period." The importance of 
such external evidence, before adducing that supplied by the 
nature and contents of the Scriptures themselves, is too obvious 
to permit us to pass it over without due consideration, or, as is 
too frequently the case, to assign it a subordinate place in our 
chain of proofs. 

It has been already pointed out that the Bible must be re- 
garded as no fortuitous compilation of scattered writings ; that 
the several books which make up the Old and New Testaments 
conspire to form one organized whole ; and that each member 
of the inspired volume performs its own part in completing the 
record of Revelation.” In short, the completion of this assem- 
blage of writings may be compared to that of a pre-arranged 
structure, to which many laborers contribute their toil, of whom 


1 On this evidence Doddridge observes: ‘‘I greatly revere the testimony of the 
primitive Christian writers, not only to the real existence of the sacred books in those 
early ages, but also to their divine original: their persuasion of which most evidently 
appears from the veneration with which they speak of them, even while miraculous 
gifts remained in the Church; and consequently, an exact attendance to a written 
Tule might seem less absolutely necessary, and the authority of inferior teachers 
might approach nearer to that of the Apostles.”—A Dissertation on the Inspiration of 
the New Testament: Works, vol. v. p. 531. That miraculous gifts were continued for 
at least half a century after the death of the Evangelist John, we have the express 
testimony of 5. Justin Martyr. Παρ’ ἡμῖν ἐστὶν ἰδεῖν καὶ θηλείας καὶ ἄρσενας, χαρισ- 
ματα ἀπὸ τοῦ Πνεύματος τοῦ Θεοῦ éyovtac.—Dial. c. Tryph., ο. 88, p. 185. Cf. ἡδέα. c. 
82. Alluding to the uncertainty which exists as to the authors of some portions of 
the Bible, whether didactic or historical—e. g. the Books of Kings, the Book of Job, 
&¢c.,—Sack observes, “that the recognition of any Book by the Church (of either Old 
or New Covenant) is a fact, at least, as important as its having been written by such 
or such a person. For the question does not so much relate to the author in his indi- 
vidual capacity, but to the circumstance that, as a matter of fact, he was acknowl- 
edged by the Church as a person divinely qualified or called to write of divine things 
for the Church.”—Apologetik, 5. 434. 

* It could only have arisen from a complete ignoring of this idea, that Mr. Cole- 
ridge has given utterance to the following sentiment, with which he closes a denun- 
ciation of ‘indiscriminate Bibliolatry:” “And lastly, add to all these [evils] the 
strange—in all other writings unexampled—practice of bringing together into logical 
dependency detached sentences from books composed at the distance of centuries, nay, 
sometimes a millenniwm, from each other, under different dispensations, and for differ- 
ent objects. Accommodations of elder Scriptural phrases—that favorite ornament 
and garnish of Jewish eloquence—incidental allusions to popular notions, traditions, 
apologues—(for example, the dispute between the Devil and the Archangel Michael 
about the body of Moses, Jude, 9),—fancies and anachronisms imported from the syn- 
agogue of Alexandria into Palestine by, or together with, the Septuagint Version, and 
applied as mere argumenta ad homines—(for example, the delivery of the Law by 
the disposition of the Angels, Acts, vii. 53; Gal. iii. 19; Heb. ii. 2)—these, detached 
from their context, and, contrary to the intention of the sacred writer, first raised into 
independent theses, and then brought together to produce or sanction some new cree 
dendum for which neither separately could have furnished a pretence !”— Confess. of 
an Inyuiring Spirit, letter iv. p. 50. As to Mr. Coleridge’s assertion that the writers 
of the New Testament have cited the Old merely by way of “‘ accommodation,” ‘ that 
favorite garnish of Jewish eloquence.”—see infra, p. 71, &e. 


54 THE IMMEMORIAL DOCTRINE [LECT. IL 


none, perhaps, have any adequate notion of the Architect’s de- 
sign—some being occupied upon that portion of the building 
committed to their own workmanship ; others overseeing sec- 
tions of the plan, and perfecting its various parts as the work 
proceeds—the Master-builder alone overlooking the whole, dis- 
tributing his orders to one immediately, to another mediately, 
and rejecting every addition inconsistent with his original con- 
ception, And so the structure grows to completion according 
to the original idea, but, in no part, without the Master-builder’s 
care.’ 

It must be at once conceded that this theory, as to the design 
and compilation of the several elements of the Bible, cannot be 
proved by direct, historical evidence. The very nature of the 
case precludes such proof. But if it can be shown that such a 
theory supplies a full and satisfactory explanation of the facts to 
be accounted for, and that, unless we assume its truth, a series 
of remarkable phenomena in the history of human conduct must 
remain an inexplicable enigma, then, I submit, that evidence, as 
satisfactory as men are capable of attaining, has been adduced 
in proof of the position here laid down ; and further, that if it 
be rejected as in itself insufficient, the rejection of such evidence 
cannot be restricted to the province of religion. 

The facts to be explained are briefly as follows :—Firstly, from 
a multitude of writings extant among the ancient Jews and 
Christians, a selection of certain books was made, to the exclusion 
of others. Secondly, the several books thus selected were re- 
ceived as infallible and divine ; those which were excluded being 
regarded as fallible and human, Thirdly, in defence, not merely 
of the doctrines and religious system contained in these books, 
but of the very books themselves, both Jews and Christians have 
submitted to persecution and to death. 

To the first class of facts I can only advert in the most cursory 
manner. The selection of the writings acknowledged as sacred 
by the Jews cannot have been owing to their antiquity merely, 
for we learn from the fourteenth verse of the twenty-first chapter 
of the Book of Numbers, that even in the days of Moses there 
was extant a record entitled ‘“ the Book of the Wars of the Lord.” 
Nor, in order to confer Divine authority upon any book, was the 


1Cf£ Képpen, “ Die Bibel ein Werk der gottlichen Weisheit,” Band. ii 8, 59. 


LECT. I1.] OF THE CHURCH OF GOD. 55 


fact sufficient that it had been written by a prophet known to 
have received revelations from heaven ; for, if so, why do we not 
find in the Canon “ the acts of Uzziah first and last” written by 
“‘Tsaiah the Prophet, the son of Amoz?”' Nor, again, did the 
circumstance of a document having been composed in the Hebrew 
language secure its recognition as Divine ; for the Jews never ad- 
mitted among their sacred writings the book of Kcclesiasticus, 
which was undoubtedly drawn up in Hebrew, and whose author, 
moreover, assumes the prophetic tone, and lays no small claim 
to authority.? Add to all this, the astonishing fidelity and affec- 
tion with which the Jews preserved the writings which they did 
receive into their Canon,—writings, too, which were not the me- 
morial of their glory, but of their shame; and in which their 
Lawgiver, from the very first, calls heaven and earth to witness 
against them.° 


12 Chron. xxvi. 22. For some account of this class of writings, see Appendix D. 
With respect to such books, Prof. Moses Stuart observes, that if any one should hesi- 
tate to acknowledge that the works of this class written by Nathan, Gad, Isaiah, and 
others, were counted of Divine authority by the Hebrews, ‘‘on the ground that proph- 
ets might write other books than those which were inspired, still the manner of appeal 
to the works in question which are now lost, both in Kings and Chronicles, shows be- 
yond all reasonable doubt that they were regarded as authoritative and sacred.”— 
The Old Testament Canen. p. 163. That these “lost” writings were regarded as ve- 
racious annals is no doubt evident; but the mere fact of their not having been even 
preserved by the Jews “shows beyond all reasonable doubt” that they were not “‘re- 
garded as authoritative and sacred.” Of infra, p. 68, the remarks of Josephus. 

3 The author of this book, to whose grandson we are indebted for the present 
Greek version, is said to have lived either 300 or 200 years before Christ. Cf Ha- 
vernick’s “ Kinleitung,” ler Th. ler Abth., 5, 29. That it was composed in Hebrew 
or Aramaic is clear from the Prologue, where the translator requests of his readers 
“to pardon us wherein we may seem to come short of some words which we have la- 
bored to interpret. For the same things uttered in Hebrew, and translated into an- 
other tongue, have not the same force in them.” 

The author, however, as I have observed, claims for himself full canonical author- 
ity. He writes: “I will yet make doctrine to shine as the morning, and will send 
forth her light afar off. I will yet pour out doctrine as prophecy, and leave it to all 
ages for ever. Behold that I have not labored for myself only, but for all them that 
seek wisdom.”—ch. xxiv. 32-34. He assumes the propb.tiec tone: “ Hear me, O ye 
great men of the people, and hearken with your ears, ye rulers of the congregation.” — 
ch. xxxiii. 18. And he closes with the words:—“ Blessed is he that shall be exer- 
cised in these things: and he that layeth them up in his heart shall become wise. 
For if he do them he shall be strong to all things: for the light of the Lord leadeth 
him.”—ch. 1. 28, 29. 

3 Pascal remarks: “Ils portent avec amour et fidélité le livre ot Moise déclare qu’ 
ils ont été ingrats envers Dieu toute leur vie, et qu’ il sait qu’ ils le seront encore plus 
aprés sa mort; mais qu’ il appelle le ciel et la terre a témoin contre eux.”—tom. ii. p. 
188, ed. Faugére. To the same effect Mr. Davison remarks: ‘‘The words of the proph- 
ets are said to have beeen ‘graven on a rock, and written with iron.’ Had they not 
been so written and engraved, by an irresistible evidence of their inspiration, how 
could they have withstood the odium and adverse prejudice which they provoked? 
How could they have survived with the unqualified and public acknowledgment of 
their inspiration ‘tom the Jewish people, who hereby are witnesses in their own 


56 THE IMMEMORIAL DOCTRINE [LEUT. 11. 


The case of the New Testament is no less peculiar. It is plain 
that the primitive Christians did not consider Apostles as alone 
qualified to compose inspired documents ; for, were such their 
belief, how can we acccount for the reception of the Gospels of 
S. Mark and 8. Luke ? Nor is the admission of these Gospels 
to be explained by saying, that no other memorials of the life of 
Christ existed than the four Evangelical narratives, and that the 
early Christians gladly collected every fragment of their Master’s 
history :—for not only, as the best criticism explains, does the in- 
troduction of 8. Luke’s Gospel refer to ‘‘ many who had taken in 
hand’ to set forth” a narrative of the events of that period, but 
the earliest of the Fathers also (e. g. 8. Irenzeus, a. Ὁ. 167), de- 
scribe the Apocryphal Gospels as being “countless in number.” 


shame; and survive, too, with that admitted character, when every thing else of any 
high antiquity has been permitted to perish, or remains only as a comment confessing 
the inspiration of these prophetic writings? And the stress of the argument lies in 
this, that these writings were not merely preserved, but adopted into the public mon- 
uments of their Church and nation; strange archives of libel to be so exalted, if their 
authority could have been resisted. But the Jews slew their prophets, and then built 
their sepulchres and confessed their mission. There is but one reason why they did 
80, a constrained and extorted conviction.” —Discourses on Prophecy, p. 51. 

1 Origen considers that this term conveys a latent reproof of those who undertook 
to write without the Divine commission. As the gift of “discerning of spirits,” con- 
ferred upon the Jewish Church, enabled it to select the true Prophets, and to reject 
the false; so, he argues, in like manner did the Church of God choose four Gospels 
only, from the many writings which claimed that name. He says: 

Taya οὗν τὸ, ἐπεχείρησαν, λεληθυῖαν ἔχει κατηγορίαν τῶν προπετῶς Kal χωρὶς 
χαρίσματος ἐλθόντων ἐπὶ τὴν ἀναγραφὴν τῶν εὐαγγελίων * * * τὰ δὲ τέτταρα μόνα 
προκρίνει ἡ Θεοῦ éxkAnoia.—Hom. I. in Lucam. tom. iii. p. 982. 5. Ambrose, in his 
“ Hxposit ‘ivang: sec. Lucam,” adopts this passage, and gives an almost literal trans- 
lation of it. Thus he renders nearly word for word the sentence omitted in the ex- 
tract just given: 

“Non conatus est Matthzeus, non conatus est Marcus, non conatus est Johannes, 
non conatus est Lucas: sed Divino Spiritu ubertatem dictorum rerumque omnium 
ministrante, sine ullo molimine ccepta complerunt.”—Lib. i. tom. 1. p. 1265. 

2 AutOnrov πλῆθος ἀποκρύφων καὶ νόθων ypadav.— Cont. Heer., lib. τ. Xx. p. 91. 
So also 8. Jerome, “Illud juxta Agyptios, et Thomam, et Matthiam, et Bartholo- 
mzum, duodecim quoque Apostolorum, et Basilidis atque Apellis, ac reliquorum, quos 
enumerare longissimum est."—Proem in. Comm. super Matt. tom. vii. p. 3. Cf Giese- 
ler, ‘Die Entst. der schriftl. Evang.” 8. 8. 

Incessant vigilance was required to guard the Canon of Scripture against such 
spurious additions. Thus Eusebius records that one Themison, a Montanist, in the sec- 
ond century, had “dared to imitate the Apostle (ἐτόλμησε μιμούμενος τὸν ᾿Απόστολον) 
by composing a catholic epistle to instruct those who had a sounder faith than him- 
self.” —Hecl. Hist. v. xviii. p. 234. 

Such attempts were severely punished. §. Jerome writes: “Igitur περιόδους 
Pauli et Theclz, et totam baptizati Leonis fabulam, inter Apocryphas Scripturas com- 
putamus. Quale enim est, ut individuus comes Apostoli, inter ceeteras ejus res hoc 
solum ignoraverit? Sed et Tertullianus, vicinus eorum temporum, refert Presbyte- 
rum quemdam in Asia σπουδαστήν Apostoli Pauli, convictum apud Joannem, quod 
esset auctor libri, et confessum se hoc Pauli amore fecisse, loco excidisse.”—De Viris 
Tlust., τς τι. ¢. vii. p. 827. The statement of Tertullian is as follows: “Quod si qu 
Paulo perperam adscripta sunt, ad licentiam mulierum docendi tinguendique defends 


LECT. II.] Or ΤῊΝ “CHURCH OF GOD. 57 


Nor, again, can we account for the admission into the New Tes 
tament of the writings of S. Mark and 8. Luke, by alleging that, 
as companions and friends of Apostles, these Evangelists had 
opportunities of gaining such accurate information respecting the 
doctrines of the Christian faith as was not within the reach of 
others :—for, if this be so, why did the Church never recognise 
as canonical the Epistle of 8. Clement of Rome—“ my fellow- 
laborer,” writes 8. Paul, ‘“‘ whose name is in the book of life ;” 
or, what is still more remarkable, when we recollect the relation 
of S. Barnabas to §. Paul, how comes it to pass that the Epistle 
of 8S. Barnabas was rejected from the New Testament, while the 
Gospel of 8. Mark, “‘his sister’s son,’ was received ?? It may 


unt; sciant in Asia presbyterum, qui eam Scripturam construxit, quasi titulo Pauli 
de suo cumulans, convictum atque confessum id se amore Pauli fecisse, loco decess- 
isse.”—De Baptisme, c. xvii. p. 263. 

The caution thus exercised by the Church was in obedience to express Apostolic 
commands. Thus 8. Paul warns the Thessalonians not to be troubled “either by 
spirit, or by word, or by detter as from us.” —2 Thess. ii. 2. So, again, S. John writes: 
‘Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God.”—1 
8. John, iv. 1. When any book was offered to the Church’s acceptance as being in- 
spired, full proof of the fact, were its claims well founded, could and would be forth- 
coming in due time. On the other hand, if any uninspired book were once received 
as Scripture, it was probable that false doctrine would come in with it; and it was 
certain that the confidence of the people in the authority of the books which really 
were inspired would be rudely shaken. See Wordsworth “On the Canon,” p. 260. 

~ Phils iv. 3: 

? Tholuck’s account of the principle which guided the selection of the Books of the 
New Testament is not very clear. Having observed that S. Mark and S. Luke were 
not Apostles, and that it is at least a matter of doubt whether S. James and S. Jude 
(the authors of our Epistles) were so,—this writer goes on to say that the primitive 
Church was, nevertheless, led “ by an unconscious but sure historico-religious tact” 
to receive their writings into the Canon of the New Testament. ‘This tact,” contin- 
ues Tholuck, “is vouched for especially by this, that none of the many impure, apoc- 
Typhal Gospels—nay, not even the Ποιμήν of Hermas, so highly prized by individu- 
als, but yet impure in spirit,—nor the Epistle of Barnabas, found admission into the 
Canon., On the other hand, the Epistle of Clemens, which was used in a wider circle, 
approaches most nearly the spirit of the Pauline Epistles; and can have been judged 
undeserving of reception into the New Testament Canon only on account of its want 
of originality." —Comm. zum. Br. an die Hebr., Hinleit, kap. vi. 8. 84. 

By the phrase “want of originality,” Tholuck, I presume, means to repeat what 
he had just said of the approach of 3. Clement “to the spirit of the Pauline Epistles.” 
That the primitive Church did not consider such a fact any reason for refusing to re- 
ceive a document as portion of Scripture, is demonstrated by the reception into the 
New Testament Canon of both the second Epistle of 8. Peter, and the Epistle of S. 
Jude. Whichever of these two Epistles is of earlier date, the most careless reader 
cannot have failed to notice that one of them is not “original,” and that its author hag 
reiterated the inspired language of the other. 

It has been doubted whether the ‘Shepherd of Hermas” was written by the indi- 
vidual named by S. Paul; “Salute Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, &c.”—Rom. xvi. 14. 
Origen, when commenting on these words (t. iv. p. 683) states his opinion that Her- 
mas was the author, and expresses the highest respect for the work itself. Elsewhere 
(Hom. 35. in Luc. xii. 58, t. iii. p. 973) he implies that the authorship is doubtful. 
This doubt is confirmed by a passage in the celebrated Fragment preserved by Mura- 
tori, the date of which Credner (“ Zur Geschichte des Kanons,” 8. 84.) places about 


58 THE IMMEMORIAL DOCTRINE [LECT. 1. 


be said, it is true, that grave doubts exist as to whether the treat- 
ise which we now possess under the name of ὃ, Barnabas was 
really written by the companion of 8. Paul—although, if any 
weight be attached to external evidence, such doubts seem unin- 
telligible ;* but, admitting this, there can be no question that, 
so early as the days of Clement of Alexandria (a. p. 192) a work 
was well known in the Church which Clement constantly refers 
to as proceeding from 8. Barnabas, whom he styles “‘ the Apostle,” 
“an Apostclic man,” “one of the Seventy Disciples, and fellow- 
labourer of ὃ. Paul.” 

The several details connected with the general question here 
considered belong, however, to another department of theology : 


the year 170. The writer of this Fragment, of which we possess only a Latin trans- 
lation, having given a catalogue of the Books of the New Testament, proceeds to 
mention some other Christian compositions. I quote the following extract according 
to Dr. Routh’s emendation of the very corrupt text: ‘‘ Pastorem vero nuperrime tem- 
poribus nostris in urbe Roma Hermas conscripsit, sedente in cathedra urbis Rome 
ecclesize Pio episcopo fratre ejus [i.e. A.D. 142-157]. Et ideo legi eum quidem opor- 
tet, sed publicari vero [ἀλλὰ δημοσιεύεσθαι δή] in ecclesia populo, neque inter Pro- 
phetas completos numero, [cf. 8. Matt. xi. 13; S. Luke, xvi. 16.] neque inter Apos- 
tolos, in finem temporum potest.”—Relig. Sacre, t. i. p. 396. 

? On this question see Appendix E. 

? The fact of Clement recognising this Epistle in such terms, has been met by the 
assertion that his acceptance of it arose from the correspondence of his own views 
with its general tone of doctrine. This allegation has been fully set aside by Giese- 
ler: “ The ancient testimony of Clement, that Barnabas was the author, cannot be 
ascribed to the partisan prejudice of an Alexandrian for the production of a kindred 
spirit: for neither could the Millenarian views (der Chiliasmus) of the Epistle (ο. 15) 
please the Alexandrians; nor do all its interpretations suit Clement, who contradicts 
one of them (Pzedag. ii. p. 221), and who prefers another interpretation of Ps. i. 1, to 
that given in our Epistle (Strom. ii. p. 464).”—Kirchengeschichte, ler Band. s. 122, 
In the former of the two latter passages referred to by the learned historian, Clement 
observes: ‘‘Consider how Moses forbids to eat a hare or a hyena;” adding a reason 
which had been assigned for this prohibition, and which he quotes nearly verbatim 
from the Epistle of S. Barnabas, c. x. This quotation is introduced with the formula 
“they say” (φασῶ, and Clement goes on to refuse his assent to the allegorical inter- 
pretation annexed to it: οὐ μέντοι τῇδε ἐξηγήσει τῶν συμβολικῶς elpnuéi wv cvyKatle 
Gewat.—Pedag. ii. p. 221; on which Potter observes: ‘ Porro hoc loco Clemens Bar- 
nab contradicit, sed tanti viri reverentia ductus, nomen ejus reticet.” In the last 
passage alluded to by Gieseler, Clement quotes this same chapter of the Epistle, where 
8. Barnabas refers Psalm i. 1, to the prohibition of Moses respecting meats: Περὶ τῶν 
βρωμάτων μὲν οὖν Μωσῆς τρία δόγματα ἐν πνεύματι ἐλάλησεν * * * AauBuver δὲ 
τρίων δογμάτων γνῶσιν Δαβίδ, To these words Clement refers with the single re- 
mark: ταῦτα μὲν ὁ BapvaBac. He then quotes another “ wise man,” who applies 
the three classes of “" blessedness” in the Psalm in a different manner,—viz., to those 
who kept themselves apart from the Gentiles, the Jews, and the Heretics. But, adds 
Clement, ‘another explains the verse with still greater propriety,” (ἕτερος δὲ κυριώτε- 
pov é\eyev)—viz., understanding the words, in their literal sense, as conveying a moral 
lesson. 

I have dwelt upon this point as it proves that the primitive Christians drew a 
broad line of distinction between inspired and non-inspired writings, even though the 
latter were composed by ‘‘ Apostolic Men”-~men, too, who possessed the same naturas 
sources of information as the Apostles. For Clement’s views on Inspiration, see Ap- 
perdix G 


LECT. 11. ] OF THE CHURCH OF Gop, 59 


I would merely add, and this even the most reluctant are forced 
to admit, that the reception of the different parts of the New 
Testament as Scripture took place without external concert,— 
from an inward impulse, as it were,—at the same time and in 
the most different places; and that, with scarcely an exception, 
each writing which it contains was all at once, and without a 
word of doubt, placed on a level with the Old Testament, which 
had hitherto been regarded as exclusively divine." In short, the 
authority conceded to this new component of the Scriptures, 
seems to have grown up without any one being able to place his 


1 The importance of this circumstance, as bearing upon the inspiration of the New 
Testament, cannot be too highly estimated. Hug observes: “ It was the distinguished 
and peculiar prerogative accorded to these writings, and for a long time the only mark 
of distinction which could be given them, that they were publicly read in the Christian 
assemblies. As in the religious meetings of the Jews, this honor was usually conferred 
only upon the Law and the Prophets, so among the Christians this eminent preroga- 
tive was granted only to the writings of the Apostles, together with the Old Testa 
ment which they retained from the Jews. Thus Peter reckons Paul’s Epistles, while 
the author was still alive, among the γραφάς, Holy Scriptures (2 Pet. iii 15, 16).”— 
Einleitung, kap. iii. § 16. This fact is allowed even by De Wette: “Die heiligen 
Schriften des N. T. wurden in Kinen Rang gestellt mit denen des A. T., welche eben- 
fells vorgelesen wurden.”—Hinleitung, 6ste Ausg. ler Th. ὃ 26. 5. 37. Cf the ex- 
tract from the Fragment of Muratori, already quoted, p. 57, note. See also Appen- 
dix D. 

It will be observed that I have omitted to urge a fact on which modern writers 
on the New Testament seem to be unanimous, viz., that one Epistle at least of S. Paul 
has been lost. The absence, however, of all external evidence on this subject is, I 
cannot help thinking, sufficient to cause considerable doubt as to the fact. The im- 
ternal evidence is contained in the words: “1 wrote unto you in an Epistle (ἐν τῇ 
ἐπιστολῇ) not to company with fornicators.”—1 Cor. v. 9. It may be well to remark 
that to the History of Moses of Chorene, published by W. and G. Whiston, in the year 
1736, there is added (p. 371) an Appendix, “Que continet Epistolas duas, primam 
Corinthiorum ad Paulum Apostolum, alteram Pauli Apostoli ad Corinthios, nunc pri- 
mum ex codice MS. Armeniaco integre pleneque editas, et Greece Latineque versas.” 
The editor observes (p. 383, note.) that the Armenian Church did not receive the 
Scriptures before the end of Cent. [V.; and that these Epistles neither occur in their 
version of the Bible, nor are mentioned by any ancient Armenian writer. Cf. Thiersch, 
“Versuch zur Herstell. des hist. Standp.” 5,104. But the list of “lost Epistles” does 
not stop here. Olshausen observes: “‘ According to Bleek’s conjecture, before the 
sending of our second Epistle [to the Corinthians], the Apostle wrote from Macedonia 
another Epistle to the Corinthians, couched in terms of strong reproof, which has not 
been preserved (so that Paul wrote to them in all four Epistles, of which two have 
been lost and two preserved), and [ am much inclined to support this conjecture. 
For, unquestionably, the apprehension experienced by Paul in regard to the impression 
produced upon the Corinthians by his Epistle, and which the arrival of Titus first 
allayed (2 Cor. vii. 2-10.)—is not justified by the nature of the first. Epistle.” —Déie 
Br. an die Corinthier, Einleit. s. 495. Olshausen further considers that ‘‘the Epistle 
from Laodicea” (Col. iv. 16.) was an Epistle from S. Paul to that Church, which is 
now “lost,” and not the Epistle to the Ephesians. Prof. Moses Stuart thinks that 3 
§. John, 9: “1 wrote unto the Church, but Diotrephes * * * receiveth us not,” 
also points to a “lost Hpistle."—On the Old Testament Canon, p. 162. 

Were these hypotheses correct, the conclusions stated above would be still more 
strongly confirmed. 


ar 


60 THE IMMEMORIAL DOCTRINE [LECT. I. 


finger upon the place or moment when adhesion to it was first 
yielded. 

It may be urged, in explanation of such facts, that the very 
nature of the books themselves occasioned the preference given to 
them. It may be said that the difference, in point of style, and 
manner, and contents, as well of the books of the Old Testament 
from the Apocrypha, as of the New Testament from the writings 
of the Apostolical Fathers, is such as admits of no comparison ; 
that the superiority of the books of Scripture is uncontested and 
incontestable ; and that, as Hooker observes of the sacred writers, 
“a ereater difference there seemeth not to be between the man- 
ner of their knowledge, than there is between the manner of 
their speech and others.”* And, finally,—it may be further ar- 
gued,—without any need of supposing special Divine guidance, 
the simple facts of the case account for the formation of the 
Canon, and enabled the early Christians, not only to judge cer- 
tain writings to be unworthy of the name of Scripture, but also 
to select others as deserving such acknowledgment. Be it so. 
Such an explanation but serves to exalt the critical accuracy, 
the profound insight, the refined taste, of those who passed that 
judgment, and made that selection. The admission which such 
an explanation involves I claim wholly on the side of the present 
argument, and at once transfer it to the cause of Inspiration. 
That continued exercise of solid judgment which selected such 
writings, and such writings only ; that critical sagacity which the 
most ingenious and subtle investigations of modern times have 
never been able to prove at fault ; that unceasing caution and 
anxious vigilance, which never admitted into the Canon a single 
book for the rejection of which any valid reasons have ever been 
shown: such qualities, conceded to the Fathers of the first ages 
of the Church, only serve to enhance the value of their opinions 
upon every point connected with the Scriptures, and, above all, 
upon the subject of their Inspiration. 


1 Sermon on ὃ. Jude, 17-21; vol. iii. p. 661, Keble’s ed. To the same effect 
Neander observes: ‘‘In other cases, transitions are wont to form themselves by de- 
grees; but in this instance we observe a sudden change to take place. There are here 
no gentle gradations, but, all at once, a bound (ein Sprung) from one style of language 
to another: which remark may lead us to an acknowledgment of the special activity, 
in the souls of the Apostles, of the Divine Spirit—the new, creative element of fhat 
first epoch.”—Allg. Gesch. der Kirche, ler Band. s. 1133. 


LECT. 1. OF THE CHURCH OF GOD, 61 


In no nation was the universal belief of the ancient world’ in 
an intercourse between earth and heaven, so deeply rooted as 
among the Jews. Their writings, composed subsequently to the 
completion of the Old Testament, afford the most decisive proof 
of their ascribing Inspiration to the authors of its several parts ; 
and leave no doubt as to their conviction that the collection of 
Sacred Books was defined under the Divine guidance, and closed 
at the Divine command.’ And I would here remark, that con- 
siderable misapprehension has arisen from not carefully distin- 
guishing the opinions of the Jews who have lived ‘since the 
coming of Christ, from the views of those who wrote before or at 
that period.* This feature of the case is peculiarly important, 
when we regard Inspiration, under its Christian aspect, as the 
characteristic function of the Holy Ghost. One of the principal 
doctrines of Christianity which Jews, of later times, have assailed 
with vehemence and vituperation, is that respecting the nature 
and operations of the Third Person of the Holy Trinity ;* and to 
this fact we may, perhaps not unfairly, attribute the prevalence 
of a peculiar tenet, first advanced by Maimonides in the twelfth 
century: adopting whose theory, modern Jews ascribe to their 
sacred Books three degrees of Inspiration—-the Mosaic, the 
Prophetical, and that of the Holy Spirit, which last they re- 


1 “Vetus opinio est, jam usque ab heroicis ducta temporibus, eaque et populi Ro- 
mani et omnium gentium firmata consensu, versari quandam inter homines divinatio 
nem.”—Cicero de Divin. 1, 1. 

2 “Tet us only hear some of these testimonies which are just as decisive as they 
are unanimous; and every doubt must disappear as to the conviction that it was the 
fact of Inspiration which caused the reception of certain Books into the Canon, and 
the exclusion from it of others.”—Havernick, Hinlezt. ler Th. 116 Abth. s. 51. 

8 This confusion is to be noted, for example, in Mr. Coleridge’s ‘Confessions of 
an Inquiring Spirit.”—Letter ii. p. 21. 

4 In proof of this assertion, I refer to J. A. Hisenmenger’s ‘‘ Entdecktes Juden- 
thum.” Konigsberg, 1711, ch. vi. p. 264. For example: The Nizzachon, p. 12, 
observes on the words, ‘‘ And lo, three men stood by him.”—Gen. xviii. 2: ‘The 
heretics (07227) [i. 6. the Christians] say he saw three, and worshipped one; and 
these are the Father, the Son, and the impure spirit (ΓΝ 3 ΓΙ mn) whom they 
name the Holy Ghost; these three he saw in the form of one, and him he worship- 
ped.” At page 142 of this same work, occurs, according to Eisenmenger, the follow- 
ing passage: 

“Tt stands, according to them, in the Gospel of Luke (wpib 7505): Whoever 
sins against the Father, he finds forgiveness; whoever sins against the Son, he, too, 
finds forgiveness; but he who sins against the impure spirit (HN7210N M75) finds no 
forgiveness either in this, or that world. Now, when all three are one, why should 
he who sins against the impure spirit find no forgiveness?” 

Eisenmenger adduces several passages to the same purpose, concluding, “Ist 
dieses nicht eine erschreckliche Liasterung ?” 


62 THE IMMEMORIAL DOCTRINE [LECT. IL 


gard as the lowest of all." But to return to the early Jewish 
writers. 

The writers of the Apocrypha invariably represent God as the 
real Author of the Law, which is styled “ Holy,” “made and 
given” by Him.* Moses is a “ Holy Prophet :” his words’ are 
quoted with the form, “O Lord our God * * * as thou 
spakest by thy servant Moses in the day when thou didst com- 
mand him to write thy Law.”* That Law “ which Moses com- 
manded for an heritage unto the congregations of Jacob,” is 
“the book of the covenant of the Most High God ;” this cov- 
enant is “everlasting ;” its “light is uncorrupt ;” and its “ de- 
crees eternal.”* “Faithfulness” and “ truth,” and the ‘ show- 
ing secret things or ever they came,” are the tokens of a 
Prophet.’ On his predictions the most implicit reliance is 
placed. Thus it is said: ‘My son, depart out of Ninive, be- 
cause that those things which the prophet Jonas spake shall 
surely come to pass ; and of Isaiah, “‘ He saw by an excellent 
spirit what should come to pass at the last.”* The study of the 


1 This theory has arisen from an attempt to explain the cause of the ancient 

division of the Old Testament writings—a division recognised by our Lord Himself 
(Luke, xxiv. 44.)—into the Law, the Prophets, and the Kethubim or Hagiographa: 
—the ὁ νόμος καὶ of προφῆται καὶ τὰ ἄλλα βιβλία, of the Prologue to the Book of Εο- 
clesiasticus:—the O°D1ND, Ὁ 35, Tn of the Jews. The source of this distinction the 
Jewish Rabbins placed in the different degrees of Inspiration possessed by the writ- 
ers of the respective parts of the Old Testament. The Mosaic degree of Inspiration, 
under which the Law was written, was the most exalted; in it no other man of 
God was thought to share, cf. Numb. xii 6-8: while Prophecy, property so called 
πΙΝ 33), was distinguished from that degree which was entitled “the Holy Spirit” 
ole mn). This view is developed at considerable length in the “ Moreh Nebo- 
chim” of Maimonides. “Its leading idea amounts to this, that the degree of the 
Holy Spirit is lower than that of Prophecy. It consisted chiefly in a revelation by 
dreams, so that the authors of the Hagiographa knew only a part of the truth, while 
Prophecy, properly so called, is pure, i. e., unveils the truth completely. This theery 
has, perhaps, been borrowed from the Muhammedan philosophers, who make a sim- 
ilar distinction between the Koran and the Sunnah, or other alleged prophetical 
writings.’—Hiivernick, Hinleitung, ler Th. 1te Abth. 5. 66. We have already seen 
(Lecture i. p. 34.) how this Jewish notion has been introduced into Christian Theol- 
ogy. For further remarks on the subject, see Appendix C. 

22 Mace. vi. 23. Τῆς ἁγίας καὶ θεοκτίστου νομοθεσίας. Cf. Ecclus. xxviii. 7. 

8. Wisdom, xi. 1. 

4 “The Lord shall scatter you among the nations, and ye shall be left few in 
number among the heatken whither the Lord shall lead you.”—Deut. iv. 27. 

5 Baruch, li. 28. 

6 Ecclus. xxiv. 23; xvii. 12. Wisdom, xviii. 4. Tobit, i. 6. 

7 “ By his faithfiilness he [Samuel] was found a true Prophet, and by his word 
he was known to be faithful in vision.”.—KHcclus. xlvi. 15. So also of Isaiah: 
Ἡσαΐας 6 προφήτης ὁ μέγας καὶ πιστὸς ἐν (pace αὐτοῦ * * * Ἕως τοῦ ἀιῶνος 
ὑπέδειξε τὰ ἐσόμενα καὶ τὰ ἀπόκρυφα πρὶν ἢ παραγενέσθαε αὐτά.---Ο, Xlviii. 22, 25. 

® Tobit, xiv. 8. Ecclus. xlviii. 24 


LECT. II.] OF THE CHURCH OF GOD. 63 


Law and Prophets is stated to be the source of wisdom." Even 
life itself must be sacrificed by the Jew in their defence: ‘‘ My 
sons,” said their dying leader,’ “be ye zealous for the Law, and 
give your lives for the covenant of your fathers.” In fine, they 
represent these books as the shield and safeguard of their na- 
tion ; and even when soliciting the alliance and friendship of the 
Gentiles,* they add, “‘ Albeit we need none of these things, for 
that we have the holy books of Scripture in our hands to com- 
fort us.” 

In addition to such writings, which, while they date events 
from the period of the cessation of prophecy,’ direct the people 
to earnest prayer for its restoration,’ we have the important re- 
mains of two contemporaries of the Apostles, Josephus and Philo, 
who may be regarded as representing respectively the Judaism 
of Palestine and of Alexandria.* 


1 Keclus. xxiv. 18, &c,; xxxix. 1, ὅσ. 2 Mattathias; 1 Macc. ii. 50. 

8 “This is the copy of the letters which Jonathan wrote to the Lacedemonians.” 
—1 Mace. xii. 5. Καὶ ἡμεῖς οὖν ἀπροσδεεῖς τούτων ὄντες, παρώκλησιν ἔχοντες τὰ 
βιβλία τὰ ἅγια τὰ ἐν ταῖς χερσὶν Hudv.—ver. 9. This statement, observes Havernick, 
“ig a characteristic expression of the tone of thought which marks the Judaism of 
that period, which founded its high esteem for the Canonical Scriptures upon their 
holiness, their Divine origin, their Inspiration. * * * These opinions, [i. e. of 
the authors of the Apocrypha in general] far from betraying an uncritical spirit, 
rather denote the sharp line of distinction which they drew between canonical and 
uncanonical writings.’—Neue krit. Untersuch. iiber das B. Daniel, 5. 22. Hamburg, 
1838. De Wette admits that, whatever may have been the reasons for admitting 
the several books into the Canon, the ancient Jews “regarded the authors as in- 
spired (begeistert), and their writings as the product of holy Inspiration (als Friichte 
heiliger Begeisterung).” —Hinleitung, s. 21: and to this effect he quotes R. Azaria 
Meor Enaim.: “ Esras non admovit manus nisi ad libros, qui compositi sunt a 
Prophetis per Spiritum 8. et in lingua sacra.” 

+ “So there was a great affliction in Israel, the like whereof was not since the 
time that a prophet was not seen among them.”—1 Mace. ix. 27. Cf iv. 46; xiv. 41. 

δ “Give testimony unto those that thou hast possessed from the beginning, and 
raise up prophets that have been in thy name.”—EHcclus. xxxvi. 15. 

δ Husebius (‘‘ Preeparat. Evang.”) has preserved a few fragments of two Jewish 
writers of an earlier date, who represent in like manner the opinion of the Jews of 
Palestine and Alexandria—the high priest Eleazar, and Aristobulus. Eleazar, in his 
Epistle to Ptolemy Philadelphus (B. C. 285.) observes, that Moses had been instructed 
in all matters by God Himself: ὑπὸ Θεοῦ κατεσκευασμένος εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν τῶν ἁπάν- 
των ---- γώ». Hv. viii. 9, t. ii. p. 282. ed. Gaisford. Aristobulus—who endeavored to 
trace the philosophy of Aristotle in the Old Testament, as Philo aftewards sought in 
its pages for that of Plato,—is identified by Eusebius (bid. p. 291.) with the individual 
mentioned 2 Mace. i. 10, where he is called ‘‘ Aristobulus, King Ptolemeus’ Master, 
who was of the stock of the anointed Priests.” In his treatise 7 τῶν ἱερῶν νύμων 
ἑρμηνεία (Kuseb, ibid. vii. 13, p. 184.) addressed to Ptolemy Philometer (B. C. 180.), 
Aristobulus observes that competent judges marvel at the wisdom of Moses, and 
the Divine Spirit by whose inspiration he has been proclaimed a Prophet : Οἷς μὲν 
οὖν πάρεστι τὸ καλῶς νοεῖν, θαυμάζουσι τὴν περὶ αὐτὸν σοφίαν, καὶ τὸ θεῖον πνεῦμα, καθ' 
ὃ καὶ προφήτης dvakexjprxtat.—bid. viii. 10, p. 292. In reply to H. Hody’s denial 
(Cont, Hist. \xx. Interp. lib. τ. ο. ix. p. 49.) of the authenticity of this treatise, see T 


64 THE IMMEMORIAL DOCTRINE [LECT. 11. 


Philo’ gives an elaborate theory of Inspiration, of which he 
distinguishes two species, ‘Interpretation’ and ‘ Prophecy.” ‘To 
the former he ascribes by far the higher dignity. ΤῸ it are to be 
referred those divine oracles which are spoken in the person of 
God by the Prophet who is ‘ Interpreter ;’ who is thus united, as 
it were, in one person with the Deity, and thus becomes a living 
word of God, since he speaks in the person of the Divine Being. 
As the power of ‘Interpretation,’ thus understood, enters upon 
the profoundest mysteries of the Godhead, Philo declines to dis- 
cuss its nature, as transcending the power of human understand- 
ing: and it is, perhaps, needless to conjecture how far this 
thought may have been suggested by some vague anticipation of 
the coming of the Divine Word Incarnate, the true source of all 
Revelation.* To ‘ Prophecy,’ on the other hand, he frequently 
adverts. It includes as well those cases in which the Prophet in- 
quires of God, and God answers and instructs him, as those in 
which God confers upon man the power of foreknowledge, by 
which he predicts future events. The distinction, however, be- 


C. Valckenaer’s Diatribe de Aristobulo, reprinted by Dr. Gaisford in his edition of the 
‘‘ Preeparatio. Evang.”—It is to be observed, that Eleazar and Josephus may be re- 
garded as exponents of the views of the Essenes, while Aristobulus and Philo rep- 
resent those of the Therapeutz. The Therapeute, according to Philo, regarded the 
Law as a living organism (ζῶον) consisting of body and soul: 

"Araoa yap 7 νομοθεσία δοκεῖ τοῖς ἀνδρώσι τούτοις ἐοικέναι ζῴῳ καὶ σῶμα μὲν 
ἔχειν τὰς ῥητὰς διατάξεις, ψυχὴν δὲ τὸν ἐναποκείμενον ταῖς λέξεσιν ἀόρατον νοῦν. -----.1)6 
Vita Contempl. tom. ii. p. 488. Cf. Olshausen, “Ein Wort iiber tiefern Schrift- 
sinn,” s. 16, ff. 

1 See Gfrorer, “Philo und die alexandr. Theosophie,” ler Theil. s. 46. ff; and 
also Hichhorn’s “ Hinleitung in das A. T.” ler Band. 5. 126. For a more extended 
examination of the opinions of Philo and Josephus, see Appendix F. 

2 «ρμηνεία δὲ καὶ Τροφητεία διαφέρουσι.----1)6 Vita Mosis, t. ii. Ὁ. 164. 

* K. g. the following singular phrase is applied by Philo to the words of Moses, 
Deut. viii. 2: ὁ προφήτης λόγος, ὄνομα Μωῦσῆς épet.—Lib. de Congr. quer. Erud. 
grat. t. i. p. 543. “As if” observes Gfrorer, ‘Moses were the Prophet above all 
others, προφήτης κατ᾽ ékoynv.”—Philo, 5. 60. That Philo believed in the impersona- 
tion of the Logos is evident from numerous passages in his writings. Thus he applies 
the title of High Priest to the λόγος. The abode of the homicide in the city of refuge 
is not to terminate until the death of the High Priest (Numb. xxxy. 25). The in- 
equality of punishment inevitable in this case affords Philo much perplexity. He 
solves the difficulty by allegorizing the command: λέγομεν γὰρ, τὸν ἀρχιερέα οὐκ 
ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλὰ λόγον θεῖον εἷναι, πάντων οὐχ ἑκουσίων μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀκουσίων 
ἀδικημάτων ἀμέτοχον. ---- )ὴ6 Profugis, t. i. p. 562. Cf also “ De Somniis,” t. i. p. 683= 
692; “De Migrat. Abrah.” t. i. p. 452. In like manner, the Logos is frequently 
called by Philo “the image of God” (εἰκὼν Θεοῦ. Cf. 2 Cor. iv. 4; Col. 1. 15). Thus, 
speaking of Exod. xxiv. 10, ‘‘ And they saw the God of Israel,” Philo observes: ‘It 
is fit that they who are allied to knowledge should desire to behold Jehovah 
(ἐφίεσθαι μὲν τοῦ τὸ Ὃν ἰδεῖν. But if they cannot behold Him, at least, His image, 
the most sacred Word.” (Τὴν γοῦν εἰκόνα αὐτοῦ, τὸν ἱερώτατον Aoyor).—-De Ling 
Vonfus. t.i. p.419. Of Gfrorer, Philo,” ler Th. 8. 243, f£ 


LECT. 11.} OF THE CHURCH OF GOD. 65 


tween ‘Interpretation’ and ‘ Prophecy’ is too subtle and too re- 
fined for Philo. He continually represents the ‘ Prophet’ as an 
‘Interpreter ;’ what he utters as Prophet not being his own, but 
the sentiment of another. Hence we find the two ideas not 
unfrequently interchanged: for example, Philo says: ‘The 
prophets are ‘ Interpreters,’ God making use: of their organs to 
manifest His will.” According to this theory, the state of the 
Prophet, under the influence of Inspiration, is one of total un- 
consciousness. He is, as it were, an instrument of music, moved 
invisibly by God’s power ; all his utterances proceed from the 
suggestions of another, the prophetic rapture having mastered 
his faculties, and ‘‘ the power of reflection having retired from 
the citadel of his soul.”* The Divine Spirit comes upon him, 
and dwells within him, and moves the entire organism of his 
voice, prompting to the announcement of all that he foretells.’ 
To that aspect of this theory, which represents unconsciousness 
as the essential condition of the Prophet’s inspiration, we shall 
advert again. I would only observe at present, that although in 
his definitions of the psychological basis of prophecy, Philo’s 
statements are exaggerated, still his favorite explanation: “The 
Prophet is an ‘ Interpreter ;’ God within his soul suggesting 
what must be said,’” contains a main element of the truth. 

The point of practical moment, however, to be noticed here, 
is the importance attached by Philo to the notion implied by the 
term Prophet ; for we can thence understand the degree of esti- 
mation in which the authors of the Old Testament were held by 
him, when he applies to them, in general, that title :—thereby 
exhibiting, as it were unconsciously, the lisht in which he re- 
garded their writings.’ To Moses, Philo, after the manne: of his 


1 The principle from which Philo draws this inference, por-erfully illustrates how 
deeply he felt the reality of the Divine influence which actuated the Prophets: Τῷ dé 
προφητικῷ γένει φιλεῖ τοῦτο συμβαίνειν" ἐξοικίζεται μὲν γὰρ ἐν ἡμῖν ὁ νοῦς, κατὰ τὴν 
τοῦ θείου πνεύματος ἄφιξιν, κατὰ δὲ τὴν μετανάστασιν αὐτοῦ, πάλιν εἰσοικίζεται, Θ é- 
utc γὰρ ὀυκ ἔστι θνητὸν ἀθανάτῳ ovvoltkjoat—Quis. Rer. Div. Her. 
ΠῚ ΡΒ, 

eS aennbehe Tov θείου πνεύματος͵ καὶ πᾶσαν τῆς φωνῆς ὀργανοποιΐαν κρούοντος, 
και ἐνηχοῦντος εἰς ἐναργῆ δήλωσιν ὧν προθεσπίζει.---- 1)6 Speciai. Leg. t. ii. p. 343. 

5 ῬὩρμηνεὺς γάρ ἐστιν ὁ προφήτης, ἔνδοθεν ὑπηχοῦντος τὰ λεκτέα τοῦ Oe0d.—De 
Prem.et Pen. t. ii. p. 417. 

Cf. Rudelbach’s Essay, ‘‘ Die Lehre von der Inspiration,” 1840. 2es Kap. s. 17. 

4 Besides the title προφήτης, Philo employs various terms to denote the sacred 
writers: e.g. Μωύσέως ἑταῖρος, or θιασώτης. τις TOV φοιτητῶν Μωύσέως, ἱεροφάντης, 
uvotaywyoc, &e. The greater portion of the Old Testament, moreover, is quoted so as 

5 


66 THE IMMEMORIAL DOCTRINE [LECT. IL. 


nation, ascribes the pre-eminence. He was ‘“‘ that purest mind, 
which received at once the gift of legislation and prophecy, with 
divinely inspired wisdom,.”’ ‘‘ He was breathed upon with heav- 
enly love.” His words are “ Oracles,”* and divinely true. To 
David, Philo expressly gives the title of Prophet ;* to the Books 
of Kings he refers under the form, ‘‘ As saith the sacred word.” 
He quotes Isaiah ‘‘ as one of the Prophets of old who spake by 
divine Inspiration.” And he clearly intimates that such opin- 
ions were not peculiar to himself,’ but were shared by his whole 


to express the most undoubted belief in its inspiration; nor is there the least reason 
to suppose that Philo did not receive as canonical the Books which he does not refer 
to by name. 

To give a few examples: Genesis is styled ἱεραὶ ypapai.—De Mund. Opp., t. i. 
p- 18. 
Exodus, ἱερὰ Bi8A0c.—De Migr. Abr., t.i. p. 438, where even Moses is styled ὁ 
ἱεροφάντης. 

Leviticus, ἑερὸς Adyoc.—Alleg. τι. t. i. p. 85. 

Numbers, ἱερώτατον ypayyua.—Deus Immut. t. i. p. 273. 

Deuteronomy, ypyou0c.—De Migr. Abr., t. i. p. 454. 

Joshua (ch. i. 5) is quoted as λόγιον τοῦ ἵλεω Geoi.—De Ling. Confus. t. i. p. 430. 

The words of Ezra (ch. viii. 2) are called τὰ ἐν βασιλικαῖς βίβλοις ἱεροφαντηθέντα. 
—Ibid. t. i. p. 427. 

Hosea (xiv. 8) is quoted as παρά τινι τῶν προφητῶν ypnabév—De Plantat. Noe, t. 
i. p. 350. 

? See “ Liber de Cong. quer. Erudit. grat.” t. i. p. 538. : 

? On this phrase Gfrérer observes: “The complete perfection of Moses’ -nature 
(seines Wesens) is described in the third book, ‘ De Vita Mosis,’ t. ii. p. 145, by the 
beautiful expression which includes in itself every other quality, καταπνευσθεὶς ὑπ’ 
ἔρωτος ovpaviov,”—P hilo, i. s. 63. 

3 The words of Moses, in general, are styled λόγεα in the locus classicus, ‘‘De Vita 
Mosis,” 11. t. i. p. 163. See Appendix F. 

4 Quoting Ps. xxiii. 1: οὐχ ὁ τυχὼν, ἀλλὰ προφήτης.----1)6 Agricult. t. i. p. 308. Ps. 
xxxvill. 4, is quoted with the form ὁ τοῦ Μωύσέως ϑιασώτης ἀνεφθέξατο.----1)6 Plant. 
Noe, t.i.p. 335. And of Ps. xciv. 9, Philo observes: ὁ θεσπέσιος ἀνὴρ ἐν ὕμνοις λέγων 
ώδε.----Π bid. p. 334. 

This mode of referring to the Psalms proves tnat Philo was unconscious of any dis- 
tinction between the inspiration of the prophetical books, and that of the Hagiogra- 
pha. See p. 62, note 7, supra. 

5 The first Book of Samuel (ch. i. 11.) is quoted with the words: ὡς ὁ ἱερὸς λόγος 
onoi.— De Hbrietat. i. p. 379. This book was accounted by the Alexandrian Jews 
the “ First Book of Kings.” 

® Tuc τῶν πάλαι προφητῶν ἐπιθειώσας elmev—De Somnits, t. i. p. 681. And Jere- 
miah is quoted with the words: τοῦ προφητικοῦ θιασώτης χοροῦ, ὃς καταπνευσθεὶς ἐν- 
θουσιῶν ἀνεφθέξατο.----1)6 Ling Confus. t. i. p. 411. 

7 It is to be observed, with reference to a common misapprehension, that although 
Philo often claims an exaggerated degree of insight into the sense of Scripture, he 
does not venture to compare himself with the sacred writers. Take, for example, the 
following passage, in which, while claiming the deepest insight into the divine mys- 
teries, Philo represents himself as an humble disciple at the feet of the Prophet Jere- 
miah, who “ announces his oracle filled with divine inspiration, and impersonating 
God :”— 

Kai γὰρ ἐγὼ παρὰ Μωσεῖ τῷ θεοφιλεῖ μυηθεὶς τὰ μεγάλα μυστήρια, ὅμως αὖθις Ἵερε- 
μίαν τὸν προφήτην ἰδὼν, καὶ γνοὺς ὅτι οὐ μόνον μύστης ἐστὶν, ἀλλὰ Kad 
ἱεροφάντης ἱκανὸς, οὐκ ὥκνησα φοιτῆσαι ποὸς αὐτόν. Ὃ δὲ, ἅτε τὰ πολλὰ ἐνθον. 


LECT. | OF THE CHURCH OF GOD. 67 


nation ; for, describing how his countrymen had excited the 
anger of the Emperor Cahgula by opposing his design of pro- 
faning the Temple, Philo adds, that the Jews would gladly em- 
brace death, as immortality, sooner than overlook the abrogation 
of even the least of their country’s laws.’ Nor, while on this topic, 
should we omit to bear in mind Philo’s entire system of allegor- 
izing, exaggerated and forced though it was, but which, like that 
of Origen, was grounded upon the firm conviction that the most 
pregnant signification is couched beneath the literal meaning 
of each expression of Scripture. 

The belief of Josephus in the authority of the Old Testament, 
and the nature of the Divine influence which actuated the 
Prophets, perfectly coincides with that of Philo. This agreement 
is particularly to be noticed with reference to the prophetic state, 
and to the manner in which both writers have employed the title 
‘Prophet.” From this we can infer in whata profound sense Jo- 


σιῶν, χρησμόν τινα ἐξεῖπεν ἐκ προσώπου τοῦ Θεοῦ λέγοντα πρὸς τὴν ἐιρηνικωτάτην ἀρε- 
τὴν ταῦτα [scil. Jer. iii. 4].—De Cherubim, t. i. p. 147. 

Gfrérer, having quoted a number of passages to prove that Philo occasionally 
claims supernatural aid when interpreting portions of the Old Testament, justly ob- 
serves: “ Doch muss man desswegen nicht glauben, dass unser Verfasser die Prophe- 
ten des alten Bundes in eine Reihe mit den gewéhnlichen Menschen, oder mit dem 
lebenden Geschlechte, stellte.”—Philo, i. s. 60. 

τὰν δὲ μόνον ἔθνος ἐξαίρετον τὸ τῶν ᾿Ιυυδαίων ὕποπτον ἣν ἀντιπράξειν, εἰωθὸς 
ἑκουσίους ἀναδέχεσθαι θανάτους, ὥσπερ ἀθανασίαν, ὑπὲρ τοῦ μηδὲν τῶν πατρίων περιΐδειν 
ἀναιρούμενον, εἰ καὶ βραχύτατον ein.—De Legat. ad Caiwm, t. ii. p. 562. 

M. Gaussen (“ Theopneustia—The Plenary Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures,” 
London, 1841.) observes, “‘The Jewish philosopher Philo in the uarrative which he 
has left of his embassy to the Emperor Caligula, making use also of a term very sim- 
ilar to that of St. Paul [θεόπνευστος, 2 Tim. iii. 16.], calls the Scriptures ‘ oracles thed- 
cristes, that is to say, oracles given under an wnetion from God.”—p. 24. But this 
writer has been led astray by not consulting the original authority. His note of ref- 
erence is “@edypiora λόγια P. 1022, Edit. Francof.” Now, both in this edition of 
Philo’s works, and in that of Mangey (t. ii. p. 577,), the words are, Θεόχρηστα 
yap λόγια τοὺς νόμους εἶναι ὑπολαμβάνοντες [scil. οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι]: and Philo uses them 
to prove how much more tenacious of their customs the Jews were than other na- 
tions. Since they believed, he argues, their laws to have “proceeded from Divine 
oracles,” they would submit to every extremity rather than admit the erection of a 
statue in the Temple. 

3 Thus, Josephus represent Moses as a Prophet in so exalted a sense that his 
words are to be regarded as those of God: προφήτης δὲ οἷος οὐκ ἄλλος, ὡς θ᾽ 6 τι ἂν 
φθέγξαιτο δοκεῖν αὐτοῦ λέγοντος, ἀκροᾶσθαι τοῦ Θεοῦ.---- ΑἸλ. IV. viii. 49, p. 258. 

So sacred are the words of the Decalogue that Josephus dares not divulge them 
to the Gentiles except in the form of a brief summary: οὖς [scil. λόγους] οὐ θεμιτόν 
ἐστιν ἡμῖν λέγειν φανερῶς πρὸς λέξιν, τὰς δὲ δυνάμεις αὐτῶν dnA@couev.—Ant. IL ν. 4, 
p. 129. Josephus gives another example of the reverence with which his country- 
men regarded the Old Testament. He relates that when the Seventy Interpreters 
had completed their version, the King (Ptolemy Philadelphus) asked how it happened 
that no poet or historian had made any mention of so admirable a work. He was 
told, in reply, that the judgments of God had fallen upon all who hed dared to treat 
of these Divine records: ὁ δὲ Δημήτριος, μηδένα ToAurcal τῆς TOV νόμων τούτων ἀνα 


68 THE IMMEMORIAL DOCTRINE [LECT. ἢ], 


sephus calls Isaiah “a Prophet confessedly Divine ;” and how 
much he intends to convey when he says that all the events of 
his nation had happened according to the predictions of the 
Twelve Minor Prophets.’ But I must confine myself here toa 
few remarks on the celebrated passage in his work against Apion.” 
In this statement Josephus maintains that the records of no na- 
tion can compare with those of the Jews in point of historic truth. 
To establish this assertion he points out the care taken to pre- 
serve the Sacred Books, and also the strict rules which regulated 
their composition. The Sacred Books, he tells his opponent, were 
delivered to the charge of the High Priest, the purity of whose 
descent was guarded by the most stringent laws, and whose ge- 
nealogy from father to son was set down in the public archives, 
and could be traced back for two thousand years. Such precau- 
tions, observes Josephus, to guard the purity of the sacerdotal 
race, are not only natural, but necessary. It is not in the power 
of every one to draw up such records, nor does any contradiction 
exist in them, because the privilege of writing them belongs to 
Prophets alone. They alone were acquainted with the facts of 
earliest date, which they have learned by direct inspiration from 
God. The history of their own times they have also written with 
unerring certainty, according as events occurred.” ‘ With us,” 
he continues, ‘‘ there is no endless series of works, discordant and 
contradictory ; two-and-twenty books contain the annals of all 
time, and are justly believed to be divine. * * * From the age 


γραφῆς ἅψασθαι, διὰ τὸ θείαν αὐτὴν εἷναι καὶ σεμνὴν, ἔφασκε, καὶ ὅτι βλαβεῖεν ἤδη τι- 
νὲς, τούτοις ἐπιχειρήσαντες, ὑπὸ τοῦ Ocov,— Ant. XU. ii. 13, p. 595. 

And the case of the poet Theodectes (mentioned by Aristotle, ‘‘ De Poet.” xviii.) 
is adduced, who, desiring to dramatize some scriptural narrative, (βουληθεὶς ἔν τινε 
δράματι τῶν ἐν TH ἱερᾷ βίβλῳ γεγραμμένων prynobjvai,) was deprived, for a time, of 
sight. x 
1 Alluding to the judgment pronourced by Isaiah against Hezekiah, 2 Kings, xx. 
16: ὧν δὲ οὗτος ὁ προφήτης ὁμολογουμένως θεῖος καὶ θαυμάσιος τὴν ἀλήθειαν, πεποιθὼς 
τῷ μηδὲν ὅλως ψευδὲς εἰπεῖν, ἅπανθ᾽ ὅσα προεφήτευσεν ἐγγράψας βίβλοις κατέλιπεν, ἐκ 
τοῦ τέλους γνωρισθησόμενα τοῖς αὖθις ἀνθρώποις. Καὶ οὐχ οὗτος μόνος ὁ προφήτης, ἀλλὰ 
καὶ ἄλλοι δώδεκα τὸν ἀριθμὸν τὸ αὐτὸ ἐποίησαν " καὶ πᾶν εἴτε ἀγαθὸν εἴτε φαῦλον γίνε- 
ται παρ᾽ ἡμῖν κατὰ τὴν ἐκείνων ἀποβαίνει προφητείαν.----Αηή. xX. li. 2, p. 516. 

? Cont. Apion. i. 7, 8, t. ἢ, p. 441. This passage has been regarded from the 
earliest times as of the highest importance. Thus Kusebius quotes it, as giving τὸν 
ἀριθμὸν τῆς λεγομένης παλαιᾶς τῶν ἐνδιαθήκων ypagdav, Tiva Tap Ἑβραίοις ἀναν- 
tTippynta.—Eecl. Hist. iii. 9, p. 103. 

* Eixotwc οὗν, μᾶλλον δὲ dvayKaiwc, ἅτε μήτε. TOD ὑπογράφειν αὐτεξουσίου πᾶσιν 
ὄντος, μήτε τινὸς ἐν τοῖς γραφομένοις ἐνούσης διαφωνίας" ἀλλὰ μόνων τῶν προφητῶν τὰ 
μὲν ἀνωτάτω καὶ τὰ παλαιότατα, κατὰ τὴν ἐπίπνοιαν τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ μαθόν- 
των, τὰ δὲ καθ᾽ αὑτοὺς, ὡς ἐγένετο σαφῶς συγγραφόν»των.---- Οὐηΐ. Apion. i. 7. 


LECT, 1. ] OF THE CHURCH OF 60}. 69 


of Artaxerxes, it is true, narratives of events extending to our day 
have been written, but they have not been counted of equal 
credit with books composed at an earlier period, because there 
has been no accurate succession of Prophets. Facts clearly prove 
how great trust we repose in our Sacred Books, for, although so 
many ages have passed away, no man has dared to add to, or 
take away from, or alter aught in them. Nay, itis implanted in 
every Jew, from the hour of his birth, to esteem as the ordinances 
of God, and to stand fast by these writings, and in defence of 
them, if need be, cheerfully to die.” This remarkable passage 
speaks for itself ; and I would merely point out its illustration 
of a topic to which considerable weight was attached in the last 
Discourse, as forming the second “ Condition” of the problem to 
be solved. The invariable rule that all writers of the Old Tes- 
tament should be Prophets—the word being understood in the 
sense given to it by Josephus and Philo, and on which the 
former founds his proof of the unerring certainty of the Hebrew 
Scriptures—ensures that every portion ot every book, whether 
relating to ancient events, or to facts which occurred in the life- 
time of the writers, has been written under Divine Inspiration ; 
while the direct communication from God of those matters the 
knowledge of which could not be naturally acquired by the Pro- 
phet, corresponds to the definition which I have assigned to Rev- 
elation.” 

I cannot leave this branch of our subject without pausing to 
inquire whether, in that portion of the Bible which constitutes 
the New Testament, and which was written by the contempo- 
raries of Philo and Josephus, we can find any traces of sentiments 
analogous to those which formed, as we have just seen, so import- 
ant an element of the intense religious consciousness of the Jews. 
Such traces are to be found: and thus the stamp of Divine 
approval is given to the general features of the Jewish doctrine 
of Inspiration. A few instances will prove this. The phrase 
“oracles of God” is employed by Philo to denote not only the 


1 See Appendix F. Winer (‘‘ Real-Worterbuch,” art. “‘Sadducder.”) argues with 
great justice from these words of Josephus, that ancient and modern writers, from 
Tertullian (‘‘ Preeser. Heer.” ὁ. 45.) downwards, are in error when they assert that, the 
Sadducees differed from the rest of the Jews in receiving as divine the Pentateuch 
alone. See also Hiivernick, “ Hinleitung,” t. i. 5. 74. 

3. See Lecture i. p. 27. 


70 THE IMMEMORIAL DOCTRINE [LECT. Ἡ. 


Pentateuch, but also the Book of Joshua,’ and therefore must 
be understood to apply to the entire of the Old Testament as a 
generic term. Now this is the very expression employed by 8. 
Paul, in the text, to describe the inestimable value of the trea- 
sure committed to the Jews ; and the word is of no unfrequeut 
use in the New Testament in this same sense.” Josephus, as we 
have seen, has expressed the belief of his nation that the authors 
of the different Books of the Old Testament were all entitled to 
the appellation of Prophets. Adopting this principle as an un- 
doubted truth, 8. Peter, having quoted a prediction of Moses, 
goes on to enumerate the other sacred writers in the words: 
““ Yea, and all the Prophets from Samuel and those that follow 
after.’ And Christ Himself, in the apclogue of Lazarus and 
the rich man, represents Abraham as describing the Old Testa- 
ment by the comprehensive phrase, “ Moses and the Prophets.”* 
Again ; Philo observes, referring to the Prophet “like unto 
Moses”* who was at length to appear, that although he was to 
prophesy, and announce his oracles at the Divine instigation, yet 
his words were not to be his own, and that each utterance with 
which he had been inspired was to proceed from the suggestion 
of another.’ It is impossible to avoid being struck by the gene- 
ral resemblance of this sentiment to an inspired statement of the 
New Testament in a much contested passage, on the meaning 
of which it casts considerable light : “‘ No prophecy of the Scrip- 

1 Λόγια; see p. 66, note ἡ, supra. Compare too (p. 65, note *) Philo’s expression for 
the book of Numbers—iepérarov ypauya—with the τὰ ἱερὰ γράμματα of S. Paul, 2 
Tim. iii. 15. 

2 Τὰ λόγια τοῦ Geov.—Rom. iii. 2. 8. Stephen (Acts, vii. 38.) reminds the Jewish 
Council how Moses “received the lively oracles (λόγια ζῶντα) to give unto us.” So, 
again, 1 Peter, iv. 11, εἴ τις λαλεῖ, ὡς λόγια θεοῦ ; and Heb. v. 12, τῆς ἀρχῆς τῶν ἘΣ: 
γίων τοῦ θεοῦ. ΑΒ a further instance of such analogies, cf. Gal. iv. 22, &., which 
contains the allegorical exposition of the history of the two sons of Abraham. The 
Apostle’s inference is prefaced by the words, “‘ which things are an allegory,” dria 
ἐστιν ἀλληγορούμενα, ver. 24.—language intimating a view of the Old Testament alto- 
gether analogous to that which characterizes the writings of Philo. For example:— 
Philo’s sentiments as to the relation of the letler of Scripture, to its spiritual or alle- 
gorical sense, may be illustrated by his remark on the migrations of Abraham: ai 
δηλωθεῖσαι ἀποικίαι, τῷ μὲν ῥήματι τῆς γραφῆς, ὑπ’ ἀνδρὸς σοφοῦ γεγόνασι, κατὰ δὲ τοὺς 
πῶ pas νόμους, ὑπὸ φιλαρέτου ψυχῆς, τὸν ἀληθῆ ζητούσης Gedv.—De Vita Abrah. t. 

it p. 11. But see infra, Lecture vii. 

5. Acts, iii. 22-24. 5. Luke, xvi. 29, 31. 

4 Deut. xviii. 18. 

δ. ἘΞ τις ἐπιφανεὶς ἐξαπιναίως προφήτης θεοφόρητος θεσπιεῖ καὶ προφητεύσει, 

λέγων μὲν οἰκεῖον ὀνδέν * * * ὅσα δ᾽ ἐνηχεῖται, διελεύσεται καθάπερ 
ὑποβάλλοντος ἑτέρου .---)6 Monarch. 1. t. ii. p. 222. And again, προφήτης γὰρ ἴδιον 


μὲν οὐ δὲν ἀποφθέγγεται, ἀλλότρια δὲ πάντα ὑπηχοῦντος ἑτέρου.---- Quis Rer. Div 
Heres, t. i. p. 510. 


LECT. II.] OF THE CHURCH OF GOD. 71 


tures,” writes 8. Peter, ‘is of any private interpretation ,;’ for 
the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man ; but holy 
men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” But 
a higher instance still remains. ‘‘ Moses alone,” writes Philo, 
‘“has fully realized the qualities of a legislator. All know this 
who are versed in the sacred books, which none could have writ- 
ten without the guidance of God,—those most glorious of pos- 
sessions, the image and copy of models stamped upon his soul. 
That these laws are truly Divine, and omit nothing needful, is our 
surest trust. The words of Moses alone, steadfast and unshaken, 
stamped, as it were, with the seal of nature itself, remain fixed 
since the day they were written until now ; and our hope is that 
for all future time they will abide immortal as long as sun and 
moon, and the universal heaven, and the world itself endure,” 
It is almost unnecessary to point out the striking resemblance 
of these words to the language of our Lord Himself when speak- 
ing of the Law: “ Verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth 
pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law, till 
all be fulfilled ;” or, again: “‘ It is easier for heaven and earth 
to pass, than one tittle of the Law to fail.” 

But it may be said that Christ and His Apostles, by adopting 
this language, merely ‘accommodated’ themselves to the preju- 
dices of the Jewish people ; and that by this principle of ‘ac- 
commodation’ are to be explained all the strong expressions 


Ὁ Ιδίας ἐπιλύσεως.---- Peter, i. 20, of which passage several commentators give 
the following interpretation: “The writings of the Prophets are not of their (the 
Prophets’) own revelation, disclosure, proprie patefactionis; they did not communi- 
cate their own thoughts, but the counsels of God.” Mangey observes on the senti- 
ment of Philo here referred to: ‘“‘ Non multum a Philone discrepat Ὁ. Petrus, 2 Ep. 
i. 20, ubi ἐπιλύσεως non de interpretatione, ut vulgo, sed de motu, et suggestione est 
exponendum ob sequentia.”—t. i. p. 510. Whether Mangey’s exposition of this ob- 
scure passage be correct or not, the principle conveyed by it is quite consistent with 
that which will be laid down in Lecture v., infra. 

3 Ta δὲ τούτου μόνου βέβαια, ἀσάλευτα, ἀκράδαντα, καθάπερ σφραγῖσι φύσεως αὐτῆς 
σεσημασμένα, μένει παγίως ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἡμέρας ἐγράφη μέχρι νῦν, καὶ πρὸς τὸν ἔπειτα πάντα 
διαμενεῖν ἐλπὶς αὐτὰ αἰῶνα ὥσπερ ἀθάνατα, ἕως dv ἥλιος καὶ σελήνη καὶ ὁ 
σύμπας οὐρανός τε καὶ κόσμος 7.—De Vita Mosis, t. ii. p. 186. 

55, Matt. v. 18; 85. Luke, xvi. 11. Mangey’s note on the passage just quoted 
from Philo is as follows:—‘“ Legem Mosis, quoad morum saltem precepta, esse per 
petuam, non Philo solus docuit, id enim sibi spondebant Judzi omnibus fere seculis. 
Siracid. xxxvii, 25, καὶ αἱ ἡμέραι τοῦ ᾿Ισραὴλ ἀναρίθμητοι. * * * Joseph. Ant. lib, 
fii 6. 8, circa finem. νόμων οὗς, κρείττονας ἢ κατὰ σύνεσιν ἀνθρωπίνην ὄντας, εἰς τὸν 
ἅπαντα βεβαΐως αἰῶνα συνέβη φυλαχθῆναι, δωρεὰν εἷναι δόξαντας τοῦ Θεοῦ, &e. 

Sompare also with Christ’s language as to the Law, the language of the book of 
Baruch, c. iv. 1: “ This is the book of the commandments of God, and the Law that 
endureth for ever.” 


12 THE IMMEMORIAL DOCTRINE [LECT. 1]. 


employed in the New Testament respecting the authority and 
inspiration of the Old. This objection will meet us again in the 
course of our investigation, and 10 may be well to discuss it here, 
once for all. 

It is plain, that in any communication from an infinite Being 
to creatures of finite capacities, one of two things must happen. 
Either the former must raise the latter almost to His own level ; 
or else He must suit the form of His communication to their powers 
of apprehension. In a word, unless God’s Revelation be meant 
to extend to the removal of every: error, and to afford man an 
unclouded view of the Divine councils and nature,—and we have 
no reason to suppose that either our senses could perfectly take 
in, or the capabilities of language correctly convey, such knowl- 
edge,—unless, I repeat, this be insisted upon, we must believe 
that Revelation has been ‘accommodated’ to the understanding 
and opinions of mankind, in all points in which it was not God’s 
will further to enlighten the understanding, or specially to correct 
such opinions.’ Indeed, by insisting upon the former part of this 
alternative, a late writer attempts to defend his denial of the pos- 
sibility of a Revelation ;—‘‘ Even the Omnipotence of God,” he 
observes, “‘ cannot infuse infinite conceptions into finite minds,” 
If we turn to Scripture, however, we shall see how this matter 
is decided. In God’s dealings with men we find ‘‘ wrath,” *‘ jeal- 
ousy,” ‘‘ repentance,” and other affections, ascribed to the Divine 


1 Of Arnold,—‘ On the Right Interpretation of the Scriptures,” Sermons, 4th Ed. 
vol. ii. p. 385; who also observes: ‘When God chooses a being of finite knowledge 
to be the medium of His revelations, it is at once understood that the faculties of this 
being are left in their natural state, except so far as regards the especial message with 
which he is intrusted. But, perhaps, we do not enough consider how in the very 
message itself there must be a mixture of accommodation to our ignorance ;—for 
complete knowledge on any one point could not be given without extending itself to 
other points ;—nay, the very means by which we receive all our knowledge, that is, 
language, and the observation of our senses, are themselves so imperfect, that they 
eculd not probably convey to the mind other than imperfect notions of truth.” 

2“The Creed of Christendom;” by William Rathbone Greg. London, 1851. 
“ Being finite, we can form no correct or adequate idea of the Infinite: being mate- 
tial, we can form no clear conception of the Spiritual. The question of a Revelation 
can in no way affect this conclusion; since even the Omnipotence of God cannot ine 
fuse infinite conceptions into finite minds,—cannot, without an entire change of the 
conditions of our being, pour a just and full knowledge of His nature into the bounded’ 
capacity of a mortal’s soul. Human intelligence could not grasp it; human language 
could not express it.”—Preface, p. x. ven Mr. Coleridge has so completely overs 
looked the fact which we are now considering, as to observe: “ How can absolute in- 
fallibility be blended with fallibility? How can infallible truth be infallibly conveyed 
in defective and fallible expressions ?”— Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit, Letter I 
p. 21. What! not even in the words of Christ? 

See also Mr. Co!zridge’s remarks on ‘accommodation,’ supra, p. 53, note. 


LECT, π.7 OF THE CHURCH OF GOD. 73 


Being. He is described ‘as sitting on a throne ;” His eyes are 
said “ to behold the children of men ;” not to mention other in- 
stances, which must suggest themselves to every one, in which 
God condescends to convey to us, not the very reality indeed, 
but something as near the reality as He sees it expedient for us 
to know. Without this species of ‘accommodation’ there could 
be no such thing as instruction.’ Every instructor must begin 
upon ground common to his pupils, with principles presupposed 
as known to them, in order to extend the sphere of their 
knowledge to other truths. The missionary, for example, 
must adopt some such process when he speaks of “ God” to a 
heathen ; he adopts the term of the heathen dialect, but he re- 
fines and exalts its meaning.* In fact, the principle of all such 
adaptations is expressed in the explanation of 8. Paul to the 
Athenians : “ Whom ye ignorantly worship, Him declare I unto 
you.” 


1 Thus, Dante writes: 


“Cosi parlar conviensi al vostro ingegno, 
Perocché solo da sensato apprende 
Cio che fa poscia d’ intelletto degno. 
Per questo la Scrittura condiscende 
A vostra facultate; e piedi e mano 
Attribuisce a Dio, ed altro intendre.” 
Paradiso, Canto tv. 


3 Τῇ this task the missionary is beset with no small difficulties; a consideration of 
which will illustrate the necessity of Divine guidance in order thus to refine the sense 
of human language, and to overcome its imperfections. See, for example, “ An In- 
yuiry into the proper mode of rendering the word ‘God,’ in translating the Scriptures 
into the Chinese language;” by Sir G. 5. Staunton, 1849, who writes: “ Drs. Morri- 
son, Milne, and Marsham, used SHIN to render Hlohim and Theos in all cases. Dr. 
Medhurst and Mr. Gutzlaff used SHANG-TEE to render these words, when the true 
God was referred to, and SHIN when the reference was to a false God.” The early 
Christian missionaries ‘accepted without scruple Tren and SHANG-TEE, which they 
found in popular use, to convey the Scriptural ideas of heaven and the true God.” 
“In 1715 the Dominicans obtained from the Pope an apostolic precept, ordaining 
among other things that the term SHANG-TEE should be no longer used in the Chris- 
tian Ritual of the Chinese, and that the term TIEN-CHU, signifying literally, ‘ Lord of 
heaven,’ and already occasionally used, should be substituted in its place.” * * * 
“Tt has been shown that SHANG-TEE, or Tien, may be said to be the immediate object 
of the Emperor’s public worship on certain State occasions. Yet it must be confessed 
that neither Tien nor SHANG-TEE, practically speaking, is viewed by the people of 
China generally, as an object of direct worship at all! The religious worship of the 
Chinese people, such as it is, is practically transferred to the multitude of SHIN 
(Ἢ gods,’ according to some translators, and ‘spirits,’ according to others), whose images 
are honored under various names.’—pp. 2-18. The Protestant missionaries propose 
to introduce the word Suin.—p. 27. 

* Acts, xvii. 23, I have not alluded to the use of the term Λόγος by S. John, 
which is commonly adduced as an illustration. Thus, Olshausen, on S. John, i. 1, 
observes: “If it be assumed (and this, if it cannot be demonstrated, cannot be proved 
untrue), that John was acquainted with the writings of Philo, * * * we have 
then an external reason for the use of this term; only we are not to assume that John 


74 THE IMMEMORIAL DOUTRINE [LECT Π. 


The importance of this subject has called attention to it from 
the earliest period of Christianity : and while the Fathers re- 
cognise and state with accuracy the nature of this ‘economy’ 
(οἰκονομία), or ‘condescension’ (συγκατάβασις), or ‘ accommoda- 
tion’ (συμπεριφορά), as it is exhibited in God’s revelations, or in the 
inspired teaching of the Apostles, they are careful to point out 
the distinction between this characteristic of the language of 
Scripture, and the ‘ hypocrisy’ (ὑπόκρισις), which through cow- 
ardice conceals a truth, or the ‘ dissimulation’ (dissimulatio), 
which to attain its ends stoops to tolerate error." In modern 
times much attention has been directed to the principle of ‘ ac- 


gained the idea itself through any historical medium whatever. Even if he did re- 
ceive some external notice of it, he obtained it first in reality through the illumination 
of the Spirit.” See also some interesting remarks on this subject in a Lecture “On 
the Platonic Philosophy,” by the late Professor W. A. Butler, published in the Irish 
Eecl. Journal for October, 1849, p. 342. 

1 A few illustrations will suffice to prove this statement: S. Cyril of Alexandria 
writes of the Holy Ghost:—"Or. τέλειον τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον καὶ οὐδὲν ἀτελὲς ἐν 
αὐτῷ" κἄν γὰρ φέρηταίΐ τινα περὶ αὐτοῦ παρὰ ταῖς θεΐαις γραφαῖς, ὑπεμφαίνοντά τι 
τοιοῦτον, τῆς οἰκονομίας ἕνεκα τῆς δ ἡμᾶς εἰρῆσθαι ddcouev.—Thesaur. 
Assert. xxxiv. t. v. p. 343. The recognised use of οἰκονομία to signify the mystery 
of the Incarnation comes under this head: Τὴν ἐνανθρώπησιν τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου καλοῦμεν 
oikovonziav.—tTheodoret. Dial. τι. t. iv. p. 62. 

S. Paul circumcised Timothy “because of the Jews.”—Acts, xvi. 3. On this, 
Clement of Alex. justly refers to the words 1 Cor. ix. 19-22, ending: ‘‘I am made all 
things to all men, that I might by all means save some ;” adding the remark (accord- 
ing to Potter’s emendation of the text): ὋὉ τοίνυν μέχρι τῆς συμπεριφορᾶς 
συγκαταβαίνων ψιλῆς, διὰ τὴν τῶν δι ob¢ συμπεριφέρεται σωτηρίαν, 
οὐδεμίας ὑποκρίσεως διὰ τὸν ἐπηρτημένον τοῖς δικαίοις ἀπὸ τῶν ζηλούντων κίνδυνον 
μετέχων, οὗτος οὐδαμῶς dvaydlerat.—Strom. ντι. ix. p. 863. 

Similarly, S. Chrysostom,—speaking of 5. Paul’s conduct, Acts, xxi. 20-26:— 
ὁρᾷς ὅτι ἡνίκα μὲν καιρὸς συγκαταβάσεως ἦν, καὶ ἸΤαῦλος iovdailev.—Hom. in Gal. ii. 
11, t. tii. p. 372. 

While the fact of such ‘accommodation’ is thus distinctly admitted, all notion of 
‘dissimulation’ is as rigidly excluded. Thus: Tertullian, referring to S Mark, x. 
46-52, where the multitude charge the blind Bartimeens that he should hold his 
peace, rejects a cavil of Marcion :—“ Aut doce increpantes illos scisse quod Jesus non 
esset filius David; ut idcirco silentium czeco indixisse credantur. Sed et si doceres, 
facilius illos ignorasse preesumeretur, quam Dominum falsam in se predicationem 
sustinere potuisse. Sed patiens Dominus: non tamen confirmator erroris, immo etiam 
detector Creatoris; ut non prius hanc cecitatem hominis illius enubillasset, ne ultra 
Jesum filium David existimaret. Atquin, ne patientiam Hjus infamaretis, nec ullam 
rationem dissimulationis Illi affingeretis, nec filium David negaretis, manifestissime 
confirmavit ceci predicationem, et ipsa remuneratione medicine et testimonio fidei. 
Fides, inquit, tua te salvum fecit.”—Advers. Marc. iv. 36, p. 564. 

Bretschneider (‘‘ Handbuch der Dogmatik,” ler Band. 8. 422) justly observes that 
Origen rejects all false ‘accommodation’ when he explains, as follows, the calumny 
of the Jews: “Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan” (S. John, viii. 48): εἰκὸς δὲ 
καὶ ὅτι τινὲς ᾧοντο αὐτὸν [scil. Christ] μὴ ἀπὸ διαθέσεως τὰ περὶ μέλλοντος 
αἰῶνος, καὶ τὰ περὶ κρίσεως, καὶ ἀναστάσεως διδάσκειν, διακείμενον μὲν Σαμαρειτικῶς, 
ὡς μηδενὸς μετὰ τὸν βίον ἀποκειμένου τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, προσποιήσεως δὲ ἕνεκεν, κατὰ τὲ 
ἔνδοξον καὶ apéoxov τοῖς ᾿Ιουδαΐοις, τὰ περὶ ἀναστάσεως καὶ τῆς αἰωνίου ζωῆς προφε- 
oduevov.—Comm. in Joann. t. iv. p. 353. 

For further instances, cf. Suicer, “‘ Thesaurus,” sub voc. οἰκονομία. 


LECT. 11.} ' OF THE CHURCH OF GOD. 75 


commodation,’ in consequence of the uses to which it, has been 
perverted by Rationalists of every school.’ It has been distin- 
guished into ‘ accommodation in the form,’ and ‘ accommodation 
in the matter, of the information communicated.* To the 
former belong the style and popular mode of instruction em- 
ployed by Christ and His Apostles, as well as their practice of 
clothing the truths of religion in parables, or allegories, or simil- 
itudes borrowed from the range of ordinary experience. Take, 
for example, the figurative analogies which Christ applies in the 
twelfth chapter of 8. Matthew’s Gospel, like a parable, in order 
to exhibit an idea vividly to His hearers—the connexion being 
such that He could not possibly be misunderstood.’ ‘ Accom- 
modation in the matter’ of the information communicated is laid 
down as being twofold : negative and positive. Negative accom- 
modation is that in which either a command is not enforced in its 
full rigor, or in which the whole truth is not at once disclosed, 
but is imparted gradually. As an instance of not insisting upon 
the strict letter of a Divine injunction, we may cite the relaxation 
of the law of marriage, by which a system of divorce was per- 
mitted to the Jews ‘‘ because of the hardness of their hearts ;’””* 
but even here the moral obligation of the command was never al- 
lowed to be forgotten, as is plainly intimated by the Prophet 
Malachi,” As cases in which the truth is unfolded gradually, we 

? Spinoza, in this, as in other kindred topics, seems to have led the way: “Nec 
aliter de Christi rationibus, quibus Phariszeos contumaciz et ignorantiz convincit 
discipulosque ad veram vitam hortatur, statuendum; quod nempe suas rationes 
opinionibus et principiis uniuscujusque accomodavit. Ex. gr. Cum Phariseis dixit, 
vide Matt. xi. 26, ‘et si Satanas Satanam ejicit, adversus seipsum divisus est,’ &c., 
nihil nisi Phariszeos ex suis principiis convincere voluit, non autem docere, dari De- 
mones, aut aliquod Demonum regnum.” Spinoza adds: ‘Si mihi enunieranda essent 
omnia Scripture loca, que tantum ad hominem, sive ad captwm alicujus scripta sunt, 
et que non sine magno Philosophie prajudicio tanquam divina doctrina defenduntur, 
a brevitate cui studeo longe discederem.”—Tractatus Theol. Polit. cap. ii. circ. fin. 

* Cf. Bretschneider, ‘‘ Handb. der Dogm.” § 42, ss. 418-430; whose rationalistie 
views here, as elsewhere, disfigure the accuracy of his distinctions. 

°S. Matt. xii. 43-45. ‘When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walk- 
eth through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none,” &c. 

‘S. Matt. xix. 8. 

5 “The Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against 
whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy 
covenant. And did not He make one? * * * Therefore take heed to your spirit, 
and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.”—Mal. ii. 14,15. Cf 
too, Christ's appeal to the original law of marriage, S. Matt. xix. 4: “Have ye not 
read,” &c. Mr. Greg asserts that our Lord “contradicted Moses, and abrogated his 
ordinances in an authoritative and peremptory manner, which precludes the idea that 


he supposed himself dealing with the direct commands of God. This is done in many 
points specified in Matt. v. 34-44 ;—in the case of divorce in the most positive and 


76 THE IMMEMORIAL DOCTRINE [LECT. BL. 


may adduce the passages in which §. Paul tells the Corinthians 
that he had “ fed them with milk, and not with meat ;”* and in 
which Christ Himself told His disciples :—“‘I have yet many 
things to say unto you, but ye cannot cannot bear them now.” 

Positive accommodation, however,—which brings us to the 
objection from which we started,—is that in which the teacher 
adopts as true, principles which he knows to be erroneous, and 
uses them so as to confirm his pupils in their errors, Of this a 
remarkable instance occurs in the New Testament, in the case 
of 5. Peter’s “ dissimulation” at Antioch ; and there it is treated 
with severe and marked reprobation. ‘I withstood him to the 
face,” writes 8. Paul, “‘ because he was to be blamed.” 

It will be easily seer how the other examples of just and ne- 
cessary ‘accommodation’ to human imperfection, have supplied to 
over-ingenious and perverse minds that coloring of truth which 
has served to lend even a semblance of plausibility to their state- 
ment, when they ascribe positive or false ‘accommodation’ to our 
Lord and His disciples. In the particular case before us, in which, 
as I have shown, Christ has given His sanction to the sentiments of 
the Jews respecting the permanence of the Law, and the authority 
of the Old Testament, His discourses were, it is true, delivered 
to the multitude on the Mount, and to the Pharigees : but we 
find Him still urging these same principles when alone with His 
most trusted friends both before and after His Resurrection ;— 
His chief argument, in all cases, being an appeal to the Prophecies 
respecting Himself.‘ §. Paul, too, when writing to his confi- 


naked manner.”—Creed of Christendom, p. 11. On this subject Mr. Davison, with his 
usual accuracy, observes: ‘The Law forbore, in some few points, a perfection of its 
discipline. It practised an unwilling condescension, in yielding to the ‘hardness of 
heart,’ the gross and refractory temper of the people to whom it was given. This was 
seen in its non-prohibition of a plurality of wives, and in its permission of divorce. 
But the Holy Jesus, who came to restore the Divine Law to its first integrity, as well 
as to make atonement for the transgression of it, He, in His Institutes, reformed these 
temporary concessions. Meanwhile, one of the Prophets [Malachi] had given a clear 
intimation that God approved not the permission so allowed, but would draw the 
domestic charities into stricter bonds of union and severity.”—Discourses on Prophecy, 
p. 44. 
TAC or 1:9. 2§. John, xvi. 12. 

5 Gal. ii. 11-18. ‘The other Jews dissembled likewise with him (συνυπεκρι- 
θησαν); insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation (ὑπο- 
«picet).”—ver. 13, Cf. the words of Clement of Alex. already quoted, p. 74, note. 
On the question of S. Peter’s conduct at Antioch, see Lecture v. 

* BH. g. 5. Matt. xxvi. 24,54; S. Luke, xxiv. 44-47. Even in prayer to His Father, 
our Lord appeals to the Old Testament: ‘“ While [ was with them in the world, I 
kept them in Thy name: those that Thou gavest Me I have kept, and none of them 


LECT. 11.} OF THE CHURCH OF GOD. 7 


dential disciple Timothy, and to those most opposed to Judaism 
at Corinth'—for the Judaizing Christians were surely not those 
who boasted that they were “ of Paul,” or ‘‘ of Apollos,”~-S. Paul, 
I say, maintains the Divine inspiration of the Old Testament as 
strictly as the most rigid Israelite of the school of Philo. But 
our denial of the use of false ‘ accommodation’ is not to belimited 
to this one point. It may be confidently affirmed, that the teach- 
ing of the New Testament affords no single instance of such de- 
ception. Christ neither denies the existence of Spirits in order 
to conciliate the Sadducees, nor does He instruct the woman of 
Samaria in doctrines which He opposed before the Jews. ὃ, Paul 
proclaims the same Divine truths before kings and rulers, before 
Jews and Greeks ; and he tells us that the doctrine of a crucified 
Redeemer was alike offensive to both. In a word, we find Christ 
quoting Moses and the Prophets to friend and to foe ; to Pharisee 
and to Sadducee ; to the people and to His disciples ; in the desert? 
and in the Temple ; at the commencement of His ministry and 
at its close ; in exposition by acts and exposition by doctrine,— 
combining it, in all matters, with the new revelation as being 
conveyed by the same Spirit. 

From all this, therefore, it may be concluded, that the senti- 
ments of Philo and Josephus and the early Jews, were not the 
mere private assertions of good and pious men, or the exaggerated 
expression of Hebrew nationality : those sentiments rather exhibit 
authentic information respecting the real character of the Old 
Testament ; information stamped with the seal of Christ Him- 
self—the source of all Revelation—who would have counter- 
acted His own sole purpose had he ascribed to the ancient Scrip- 
tures authority to which they could lay no claim, 

I now turn to the evidence afforded by the Christian Church ;° 
and in doing so it may be well to notice, in the first instance, any 
traces that exist of exceptions to the singular uniformity which 
is lost, but the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.”—S. John, xvii. 
12. Cf xiii. 18. 

12 Tim. iii. 16; 1 Cor. iii. 4. The great majority of S. Paul’s Epistles, and, to a 
great degree, the Gospels, were intended for those who were not Jews, and who, 
therefore, could not have been prejudiced in favor of the Old Testament. 

* See especially the accounts of His Temptation,—S. Matt. iv.; S. Luke, iv. 

* For a more extended discussion of the opinions of the Fathers, see Appendix G. 
So anexceptiorable a witness as De Wette introduces his list of authorities from the 


early Christian writers, from 8. Irenzus downwards, with the remark: “ Man er 
kannte diese Bicker als heilig und gottlich.”—Hinlett. § 22, s. 30. 


78 THE IMMEMORIAL DOCTRINE [LECT. IL 


has prevailed upon the question of Inspiration in every age. It 
has become the fashion, indeed, am ng modern writers, following, 
I apprehend, in the footsteps of Neander,’ to point to the cele- 
brated Theodore of Mopsuestia, who lived at the opening of the 
fifth century, as having led the way in questioning the inspiration 
of the Scriptures.’ I believe this charge to be altogether without 


1 Neander observes, in the first edition of his history (A. Ὁ. 1829): “The germs 
of this tendency [viz. to a ‘“‘ grammatico-logical” method of interpreting the Bible] 
were still further developed by distinguished men in the fourth century, and in the 
commencement of the fifth * * * above all by the acute and original Theodore 
of Mopsuestia. * * * We find, in fact, traces of a more free mode of apprehend- 
ing the idea of Inspiration in this period, only in those cases where a more unpreju- 
diced grammatico-logical interpretation of the Bible conduced to that result, as in the 
case of a Jerome, a Theodore of Mopsuestia, and a Chrysostom.”—Allg. Gesch. der 
Kirche, 2er Band. s. 503. Neander has considerably modified his opinion as to the 
views respecting Inspiration maintained by the three writers named in this extract. 
In the second edition of his history, published in 1846, the entire of the section, from 
which I have just quoted, has been re-written to the extent of several pages; the 
author contenting himself with adducing a series of quotations from Theodore, S. 
Chrysostom, and §. Jerome, to illustrate the proposition, that in consequence of the 
principles according to which those writers expounded the Bible, they have advanced 
certain ideas, “ αὐ the foundation of which lies a peculiar modification of the notion of 
Inspiration.”—2te Aufl. 2er Band, 5. 661, ff. 

For an examination of Theodore’s estimation of Scripture, see Appendix G. The 
reader may form a judgment with respect to S. Jerome’s views from the following 
comment on Eph. iii. 6:—‘ Scio appositionem conjunctionis ejus, per quam dicitur, 
‘coheredes, et concorporales, et comparticipes,’ indecoram facere in Latino sermone 
sententiam. Sed quia ita habetur in Greco, et singuli sermones, syllabee, apices, puncta, 
in divinis Scripturis plena sunt sensibus, propterea magis volumus in compositione 
structuraque verborum, quam intelligentia periclitari.”—T. vii.. p. 591. For 5. Chry- 
sostom’s theory of Inspiration, see, for the present, p. 88, note °, infra. 

* Thus, for example, M. Gaussen writes: “ With the exception, we say, of Theo- 
dore de Mopsueste, the long period of the first eight centuries of Christianity did not 
produce a single theologian who disavowed the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, 
save only among the most violent of the heretical sects which have troubled the 
Christian Church; I mean the Gnostics, the Manichzeans, the Anomceans, and the 
Mahometans.”—Theopneustia, p. 353. 

One feels more surprise, however, at so well-informed a writer as Rudelbach 
making the same assertion; especially since he adduces as his sole grounds the fact 
of Theodore having denied the Canonical authority of the Book of Job, of Proverbs, 
and of Ecclesiastes. See his “‘ Zeitschrift” for 1840: “ Die Lehre von der Inspir.,” 268 
Kap., s. 46. I have already observed (p. 46), when referring to the similar error of 
Luther as to certain Books of the New Testament, that it is an obvious mistake to 
represent the denial of the Canonicity of a particular Book as being equivalent to a 
denial of the inspiration of Scripture in generai. In Theodore’s, as in Luther’s case, 
the low estimate in which particular Books were regarded, arose from the exalted 
sense in which the Divine character of Scripture was felt and recognised :—their com- 
mon error consisting in the belief, that such and such portions of the Bible did not 
satisfy the tests of Inspiration which they ventured to define. This distinction, Ru- 
delbach insists upon when speaking of Luther, while he forgets to acknowledge its 
existence in the parallel case cf Theodore of Mopsuestia. He remarks: ‘ Passages lie 
before us from Luther’s writings, writings, too, composed at very different periods of 
his life, (even at the date of his rude decision as to the Epistle of James,) which sat- 
isfactorily prove that he never ceased to assert the verbal inspiration of the Holy 
Seriptures, and that we, consequently, do violenge to his words if we impute to him 
any other principle.”—Jbid. 4es Kap. s. 8. See Appendix C. 


LECT. 11.] OF THE CHURCH OF GOD. 79 


foundation. Suffice it here to observe, that when the doctrinal 
views of Theodore were condemned at the Fifth General Council, 
nearly one hundred and thirty years after his death ; and when 
every imputation which controversial animosity could suggest, was 
cast in after-times upon his memory by individual opponents'—no 
allusion whatever was made to his having deviated, on this car- 
dinal point, from the universal belief of Christendom, This har- 
‘mony of opinion, indeed, will appear the more striking when the 
nature of the exceptions which do exist is duly considered. 

It is a common and a just remark of Christian writers from 
the earliest times, that amid the various contests in which the 
Church has had to engage with the different forms of heresy, 
both sides have appealed to the Divine authority of the Bible.’ 
The single exception to this uniformity of sentiment which the 
records of antiquity appear to afford occurs in the case of such a 
controversy. This contradiction of the unanimous voice of the 
Church proceeded from the Anomceans—that extreme section of 
the Arians, in the fourth century, whose heretical tenet of the 
complete dissimilarity between the Father and the Son gave rise 
to their name. Of this party 8. Epiphanius tells us, and he men- 
tions it as an offence unheard of in any previous controversy, that 
when pressed by arguments from Scripture, its defenders replied, 


1K. g. Leontius of Byzantium (A. Ὁ. 590), in his work ‘‘Contra Nestorianos et 
Eutychianos,” of which merely a Latin version had been published by Canisius, in 
his ‘‘ Lectiones Antique,” (ed. Basnage. Ant. 1725. t. i. p. 525.) the original Greek 
text not having been accessible before the year 1844, when it was given by Cardinal 
Mai in his “Spicilegium Romanum,” t. x. pars ii. p. 1, &e. While defending Theo- 
dore from the charge of having called in question the inspiration of Scripture, I must 
altogether disclaim any desire to defend his orthodoxy on other points: ‘‘ Est enim 
manifestum, Theodorum Nestorii magistrum, utpote Nestoriani erroris auctorem, a 
veteribus vocari.”—O. F. Fritsche, De. Theodori Vita, p. 15. His merit, however, as 
an expositor of Scripture has never been called in question. Cardinal Mai, in the 
Preface to his edition of Theodore’s Commentary on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 
(‘‘Seriptorum Veterum Collectio,” Rom, A. Ὁ. 1832. tom. vi.) expresses the estima- 
tion in which he was held: “ Ab Orientalibus ‘ Sapientize mare,’ et Scripturarum ‘ In- 
terpres κατ᾽ ἐξοχῆν dictus, universe Ecclesiz Doctor interdum appellatus, et Magni 
denique, cognomento donatus.”—p. v. Cardinal Mai, having pointed out the faults 
usually noted in Theodore’s Commentaries, goes on to speak in the highest terms of 
his exposition of the Minor Prophets; observing, that notwithstanding the obscurity 
of the subject, Theodore “non verba legere, sed in Prophet cujusque mentem 
ocilorum aciem intendere videatur. Quamobrem, non sine causa, a multis arcem 
Interpretum tenere dictus est.”—p. xv. 

* Thus S. Irenzeus writes: ‘Tanta est autem circa Evangelia hee firmitas, ut et 
ipsi heeretici testimonium reddant eis, et ex ipsis egrediens unusquisque eorum cones 
tur suam confirmare doctrinam.”—Cont. Her. lib. iii. 11. p. 189. So also Theodoret, 
in his Dialogues, makes the representative of heresy observe: M7 μοι λογισμοὺς ave 
ϑρωπίνους προσενέγκῃς. ἐγὼ γὰρ μόνῃ πείθομαι τῇ θείᾳ γραφῇ. Hranistes, Dial. 1 t 
wv. p. 13. 


80 THE IMMEMORIAL DOCTRINE [LECT. IL. 


either—‘ The Apostle makes that statement merely as a man ;” 
or,— Why do you quote the Old Testament against me?’ It 
is generally believed, too, that the objections noticed by S. Je- 
rome in his Preface to the Epistle to Philemon proceeded in like 
manner from the Anomeeans.* The only other instance which I 
have been able to discover of the subsequent revival, in any part 
of the Church, of erroneous views upon the subject of Inspira- 
tion, is in the case of a monk of Constantinople, of the twelfth 
century.° 

The positive testimonies to which I now proceed may with 
some propriety be arranged under three heads : the First, relating 
to the Divine influence exerted in the composition of the Bible ; 
the Second, to the human agents selected to write the different 
books ; the Third, to the nature of the writings thus produced. I 
shall not attempt here* to give more than a rapid sketch of the 
nature and weight of the proofs which may be adduced ; and I 
would merely observe, before entering upon this branch of the 
subject, that we must not expect to find in the annals of the early 
Church any such elaborate theory, or series of systematized pro- 
positions on the subject of Inspiration, as we meet with in the 
case of other doctrines. The absence, indeed, of dogmatic teach- 
ing on this question during the first fifteen centuries of the Church 
affords a clear illustration of the harmony of opinion which pre- 
vailed respecting it ; while the unhappy distractions of modern 


1 Ὅταν ἐλεγχόμενοι ὑπὸ τίνων ὑπωπιάζωνται, εὐθὺς ἀποτρέχοντες Kal ἀποπηδῶντεε, 
καὶ λέγοντες, τοῦτο ὁ ᾿Απόστολος ὡς ἄνθρωπος ἔφη. ἄλλοτε δὲ, τί μοι φέρεις τὰ 
τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης; “Nor is this strange,” proceeds 5, Epiphanius, “for ‘if they 
have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them 
of His household?’ viz. His Prophets and Apostles.”—Adv. Her. lib. iii. Heeresis 76. 
t. 1. p. 992. Cf Rudelbach, loc. cit. 265 Kap. 5. 45. 

* This seems to be the earliest allusion to the vulgar objection against Inspiration, 
founded upon the Apostle’s words—“ The cloke which I left at Troas,” &¢.—2 Tim. 
vy. 13. On such passages the heretics founded the conclusion: ‘‘ Non semper Apos- 
tolum, nec omnia, Christo in se loquente dixisse.”—S. Jerome, Pref. in Ep. ad Philem. 
t. vil. p. 742. 

ἐπα τ τς Zigabenus, A. D. 1116. 5, Mark (ii. 27) adds to the words of our 
Lord recorded by S. Matthew (xii. 8), the saying: “The Sabbath was made for man, 
and not man for the Sabbath.” On this Euthymius observes, that we need not won- 
der at such variations, for the Evangelists wrote many years after these words were 
spoken; and since they were but men, it is natural they should oceasionly forget what 
had been said: οὐ χρὴ δὲ θαυμάζειν εἰ τὰ μὲν οὗτος ὁ εὐαγγελιστὴς προστίθησι, τὰ δὲ 
ἐκεῖνος παραλιμπάνει. καὶ γὰρ οὐχ ἅμα τῷ λέγειν τὸν Χριστὸν ἔγραφον τὰ εὐαγγέλια 
iva καὶ πάντων ὁμοῦ τῶν αὐτοῦ λόγων ἀπομνημονεύειν ἔχοιεν" ἀλλὰ μετὰ πολλοὺς bores 
ρον ἐνιαυτούς. καὶ εἰκὸς, ds θρώπους ὄντας αὐτοὺς ἐπιλαθέσθαι τινῶν." 
Comm. in S. Matt. xii. 8. t. 1. Ὁ. 465. Ed. Matthei. Leipzig, 1192. 

* See Appendix G. 


LECT. I1.] OF THE CHURCH OF GOD. 81] 


times, sufficiently account for the want of any authoritative de- 
cision since the sacred precincts have been invaded. This absence, 
however, of recognised theory or system serves but to exhibit in 
bolder relief how profoundly incorporated with the Christian con- 
sciousness of those times was the belief in the inspiration of 
Scripture ; and undesignedly represents its depth, its fervor, and 
its source. 

I. The evidence as to the belief of the Church in the Divine 
influence exerted in the composition of the Bible, naturally starts 
from that Article of the Creed in which Christians to the present 
day profess :—‘‘ We believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, the 
Life-giver * * * whospakeby the Prophets.” This Confession 
not only defines the inspiration of the sacred writers to be the act 
of the Holy Ghost ; but it also lays down as a fundamental doc- 
trine of Christianity, that Old and New Testament have pro- 
ceeded from the same source, and are alike Divine. That to this 
latter truth the Article of the Creed chiefly refers, admits of no 
doubt. In fact, it merely embodies a tenet maintained from the 
very first in opposition to the various phases of Gnosticism ; for 
in the earliest writings composed in defence of Christianity, the 
epithet ‘ Prophetic’ (προφητικόνν) is the title usually assigned to the 
Holy Ghost.? We observe this co-ordination of Old and New 
Testament so early as the days of S. Polycarp, who, when re- 
ferring to “the Scriptures,” combines in one quotation a passage 
from the Psalms, and a text from the Epistle to the Ephesians.’ 
So also S. Justin Martyr having quoted to the Jew Trypho the 
words of the Prophet Malachi,‘ breaks forth into praise of God’s 
goodness, adding : ‘‘These words have not been devised by me, 

1 Πιστεύομεν * * * ic τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, TO κύριον, τὸ ζωοποιν Ἔ * F 
τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν TpodnTov.—Symb. Constant. Mansi. t. iil. p. 565. 

2 EB. g. by 5. Justin Mart.: ᾿Εκεῖνον τὲ, καὶ τὸν παρ᾽ Αὐτοῦ ‘Yidv ἔλθοντα * * * 
Πυεῦμα τὲ. τὸ προφητικὸν σεβόμεθα, καὶ προσκυνοῦμεν.---Αγοῖ. i. § 6. p. 41. 
And, again, quoting Gen. xlix. 10: ὡς προεῤῥέθη ὑπὸ τοῦ θείου ἁγίου προφητικοῦυ 
Πνεύματος διὰ τοῦ Μῶύσέως, μὴ ἐκλείψειν ἄρχοντα κ. τ. λ.--Ο δά, § 82. p. 68. 

3 This passage, which is extant only in the old Latin version, is quite obscure 
according to the ordinary punctuation. I quote it after Dr. Jacobson’s judicious sug- 
gestion (“ Patres Apostolici,” ed. 3tia, t. ii. p. 527.): “Confido enim vos bene exerci- 
tatos esse in sacris literis, et nihil vos latet; mihi autem non est concessum [post 
“ concessum,” vos zedificare, ex verbis ad fin. $11, subawd.] Modo ut ΗΙΒ SCRIPTURIS 
dictum est; Irascimini, et nolite peccare [Ps. iv. 4, LXX.]; et, Sol non occidat super 
tracundiam vestram [Eph. iv. 26].”—S. Polycarpi, Zp. ad Philipp. § 12. 

* “T have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of Hosts, neither will I accept an 


offering at your hand. For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of 
the same, My Name shall be great among the Gentiles,” &c.—Mal. i. 10, 11. 


6 


82 THE IMMEMORIAL DOCTRINE [LECT. II, 


nor have they been embellished by any human skill. Such were 
the songs of David ; so Isaiah proclaimed glad tidings, and Zech- 
ariah preached, and Moses composed his record. Dost thou re- 
cognise them, Trypho? They are preserved in the writings of 
your people—nay, I should rather say, in ours ; for we obey them, 
but you, though reading them, do not discern their sense.”* And 
the belief that both Testaments enforce the same lesson is implied 
in the striking parallel of Origen : “‘ When the people murmured 
against Moses in the wilderness, he led them to the rock to drink ; 
and even now he leadeth them to Christ.” 

The ordinary style in quoting Scripture was, either to omit 
the writer's name—“ Thus spake the Holy Ghost ;” or to supply 
it thus—‘‘ So spake the Spirit by Solomon,” or “by Isaiah,” or 
“by Paul.” “ It is needless to seek,” said 8. Gregory the Great, 
““who wrote the Book of Job, since we may faithfully believe 
that the Holy Ghost was its author.” ‘“‘ What avails it,” said 
Theodoret, ‘‘ to know whether all the Psalms were written by 
David, it being plain that all were composed under the influence 
of the Divine Spirit ?”® Hence the numerous epithets applied to 
every part of Scripture :—‘‘ The Scriptures of the Lord ;” “ the 
Divine Scriptures ;” ‘‘ Heavenly Letters.” The phrase, however, 
most usually employed is that of 8. Paul: “Scriptures given by 
inspiration of God.” In a word, the evidence under this head 
may be summed up in the language of 8. Clement of Rome: 

1 Οὐ yap ὑπ’ ἐμοῦ συνεσκευασμένοι εἰσὶν οἱ λόγοι, οὐδὲ τέχνῃ ἀνθρωπίνῃ κεκαλ- 
λωπισμένοι, ἀλλὰ τούτους Δαβὶδ μὲν ἔψαλλεν, Ἤσαΐας δὲ εὐηγγελίζετο, Ζαχαρίας δὲ 
ἐκήρυξε, Μωῦσῆς δὲ ἀνέγραψεν. ᾿Ἐπιγινώσκεις αὐτοὺς, Τρύφων ; ᾿Εν τοῖς ὑμετέροις 
ἀπόκεινται γράμμασι, μᾶλλον δὲ οὐχ’ ὑμετέροις, ἀλλ᾽ ἡμέτεροις" ἡμεῖς γὰρ αὐτοῖς πειθόμε- 
θα: ὑμεῖς δὲ, ἀναγινώσκοντες, οὐ νοεῖτε τὸν ἐν αὐτοῖς νοῦν .----Π γαῖ, cum Tryph. ο. 29. p.127. 

2 “ Murmuraverunt adversus Moysen, et propterea jubet Dominus αὖ ostendat eis 
petram, ex qua bibant. Si quis est, qui legens Moysen murmurat adversus eum, et 
displicet ei lux, que secundum literam scripta est * * * ostendit ei Moyses pe- 
tram, que est Christus, et adducit eum ad ipsam ut inde bibat, et reficiat sitim suam.” 
—Hom. in Euod. xi. 2, t. ii. p. 169. 

3 For example, 5. Cyprian: ‘“ Loquitur per Salomonem Spiritus 8..—De Opere et 
Eleemos. p. 240. Tertullian:—‘“ Spiritus Sanctus hance Scripturee suze rationem ccn- 
stituit, ut cum quid ex aliquo fit, et quod fit, et unde fit, referat. ‘ Fruticet,’ inquit, 
‘terra herbam foeni, seminantem semen,’” &c. &.—Adv. Hermogen. cap. xxii. p. 276. 
To the same effect Clemens Alex. : 

ἔχεις τὸν χορὸν πάντα τὸν προφητικὸν, τοὺς συνθιασώτας TOD Μωῦσέως. τί φησὶν ad- 
τοῖς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἽΔγιον διὰ ᾿Ὡσηὲ, ὀυκ ὀκνήσω λέγειν Ἔ Ἔ * ἔτι δὲ καὶ διὰ ‘“Hoa- 
tov x. τ. A.—Cohortat. ad Gentes, ο. viii. p. 67. 

4 “Sed quis hee scripserit, valde supervacue queritur, cum tamen auctor libri Spi- 
ritus Sanctus fideliter credatur.”’—Pref. in Moralia in Inb. Job. t. i. p. 7. 

"᾿Εγὼ δὲ περὶ τούτων μὲν οὐδὲν ἰσχυρίζομαι. ποίαν yap μοι προστίθησιν ὠφέλειαν, 
εἴτε τούτου πάντες, εἴτ᾽ ἐκείνων elév τινες " δήλου γέ ὄντος, ὡς ἐκ τῆς τοῦ θείου Πνεύμα- 
roc ἐνεργείας συνεγράφησαν ἅπαντες ;—Protheoria in Psalmos, t. i. p. 395. 


LECT. 11. OF THE CHURCH OF GOD. 83 


“ Give diligent heed to the Scriptures, the true sayings of the 
Holy Ghost,” 

From such principles the Church inferred the sufficiency, the 
infallible certainty, and the perfection of Scripture. On this 
foundation §. Athanasius argues against the Gentiles: ‘ The 
holy and divinely inspired Scriptures are sufficient to express the 
truth.” So, again, the critical and unimpassioned Husebius, 
alluding to an assertion that in the superscription of the thirty- 
fourth Psalm, the name Abimelech had been, by an oversight, 
substituted for Achish, rejects the idea with indignation : ‘‘ I hold 
it,” he observes, “to be alike rashness and presumption to ven- 
ture to prove that the Divine Scriptures have erred.” 

I may also observe that the joint participation of the Eternal 
Word and of the Holy Spirit in bringing the Scriptures into 
being, to which I have already drawn attention, was a truth fully 
appreciated by the Fathers. The sacred writers are said to “ have 
been moved by the Spirit,” as well as “‘ moved by Christ.’”* ‘‘ They 
who prophesy,” said 8. Justin M., “‘ are actuated by no other than 
the Divine Logos.”* On other occasions this same writer ascribes 
the prediction to ‘‘ the Prophetic Spirit.”* And in one place he 
combines the two ideas: * Think not that the words which you 
hear the Prophet speaking in his own person were uttered by 
himself, when filled with the Spirit, but by the Divine Word who 
moved him.” 


1 Ἔν [κύπτετε] εἰς τὰς γραφάς, τὰς ἀληθεῖς [ῥήσεις] Πνεύματος τοῦ ‘Ayiov.—Ad 
Corinth. c. 45. t. i. p. 162. ed. Jacobson. 

2 Αὐτάρκεις μὲν γάρ εἶσιν ai ἅγιαι καὶ θεόπνευστοι γραφαὶ πρὸς THY τῆς ἀληθείας 
ἀπαγγελίαν .---- Or. cont. Gentes, t.i.p.i. Still more strongly, on another occasion, this 
great Father writes: 

Μάτην γοῦν περιτρέχοντες προφασίζονται, διὰ πίστιν ἠξιωκέναι, γενέσθαι τὰς συνό- 
dove. ἔστι μὲν γὰρ ἱκανωτέρα πάντων ἡ θεία ypagn.—Epist. de Sy- 
nodis Arim. et Seleuc. t. i. p. 120. 

5 Ὁ μὲν οὖν τις ἐρεῖ, ἐπεὶ μὴ ἐμφέρεται ἐν τῇ ἱστορία τῇ κατὰ τὸν ᾿Αχιμέλεχ᾽ ἀλλοιώ- 
σας τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ὁ Δαυὶδ, κατὰ σφάλμα κεῖσθαι τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ ᾿Αβιμέλεχ ἀντὶ τοῦ 
ὀνόματος ᾿Αγχούς. σαφῶς γὰρ ἐπὶ τοῦ ᾿Αγχούς εἴρηται" ἀλλοιώσας τὸ πρόσωπον κ. τ. A. 
[1 Sam. xxi.13] * * * ἔργον δὲ θρασὺ καὶ προπετὲς εἶναι ἡ γοῦ- 
μαι τὸ ἀποφήνασθαι τολμᾷν τὴν θείαν γραφὴν ἡμαρτῆσθαι. 
— Comment. in Psal. ed. Montfi—Coll. nov. Patr. t. i. p. 129. 

* Ilvevyatogépot.—Theophilus, ad Autolye. lib. ii. 9, p. 354. 

Xproropopo.—S. Athanasius, Cont. Gentes, 5. t. i. 5.—De Incarnatione, 10. t. i 

. 56. 
δ Ὅτι δὲ οὐδενὶ ἄλλῳ θεοφοροῦνται of προφητεύοντες εἰ μὴ Λόγῳ Oeiw, καὶ ὑμεῖς ὡς 
ὑπολαμβάνω φῆσετε.---Αγοϊ. τ. § 38. p. 64. 
g “Ὁ αὐτὸς προφήτης Ἡσαΐας θεοφορούμενος τῷ Πνεύματι τῷ προφητικῷ &on—Ibid 
35. p. 65. 

7 Ὅταν δὲ τὰς λέξεις τῶν προφητῶν λεγομένας ὡς ἀπὸ προσώπου ἀκοΐητε, μὴ ἀπ’ 

αὐτῶν τῶν ἐμπεπνευσμένων λέγεσθαι νομίσητε. ἀλλ᾽ ἀπὸ τοῦ κινοῦντος αὐτοὺς 


84 THE IMMEMORIAL DOCTRINE [LECT. IL 


II. Under the second head may be comprised all allusions tc 
the effect of the Divine influence upon the intellectual faculties 
of the Prophets. The Fathers of the Church at a very early 
period expressed their opinions on the subject ; and this fact is 
the more important, inasmuch as by their contact. with heathen- 
ism on the one side, and the impure element of Montanism on 
the other, they stood sufficiently near the phenomena presented 
by those false systems to be conscious of their tendency, and to 
feel the necessity of guarding against either extreme. We know 
from the writings of Plato that the Seers or Diviners (μάντεις) of 
the heathen were so called from the state of phrensy in which they 
uttered their oracles ; the Prophet (προφήτης) being merely the in- 
terpreter of the unconscious Diviner (μάντις.)}) The early Church 
clearly perceived that the difference between this natural divi- 
nation—the Mantike of the old world—and true prophecy, is 
essential and specific. Origen argues, at some length, that the 
ecstatic and phrensied condition of the Pythian prophetess, 
whose hallucinations Celsus had adduced in opposition to the 
Prophets of the Old Testament, could not be the product of 
the Spirit of God. The Jewish Prophets, he urges, ‘“ were 
illuminated by the Divine Spirit; their understanding becom- 
ing more perspicacious, and their souls more lucid by the touch, 
as it were, of the Holy Ghost. But if the Pythia, while de- 
livering her oracle, is in ecstacy, and no longer self-possessed, 
what sort of spirit must we deem that to be which darkens 
her understanding, and clouds the faculties of her mind ?”” 


θείου Aoyouv.—Ibid. § 36. p.65. The principle expressed by this language, and 
which I have already stated, Lecture i. p. 25, note, is clearly laid down by S. Atha- 
nasius: οὐ γὰρ ἐκτός ἐστι τοῦ Λόγου τὸ Πνεῦμα, ἀλλὰ ἐν τῷ Λόγῳ ὃν, ἐν τῷ Θεῷ JV 
αὐτοῦ ἐστιν" ὥστε τὰ χαρίσματα ἐν τῇ Τριάδι didocbar.—Epist. ili. ad Serap. 5. t. i. 
p. 694. i 

* See above, p. 65, the opinion of Philo. Baumgarten Crusius observes that the 
word προφήτης is employed by the Alexandrian writers in a sense different from its 
classical usage. With the Alexandrians it denotes merely ‘one who foretells ;’ with 
the Greeks, ‘one who announces’ (épunvevc, ἐξηγητής, ef. Ruhnken on Timzeus), 
what the μάντις had uttered.—Grundziige der bibl. Theologie, 5. 40. 

‘The derivation [of μάντις] from μαίνομαι is found as early as Plato (Tim. 72 Ὁ.) 
where he distinguishes μάντεις from προφῆται, the former being persons who uttered 
oracles in a state of divine frenzy, the latter the interpreters of those oracles.” —Liddell 
and Scott. I shall have occasion to return to the point heie adverted to. 

2 ᾿Αλλὰ καὶ τὸ εἰς ἔκστασιν καὶ μανικὴν ἄγειν κατάστασιν THY δῆθεν προφητεύουσαν, 
ὡς μηδαμῶς αὐτὴν ἑαυτῇ παρακολουθεῖν, οὐ θείου Πνεύματος ἔργόν ἐστιν * * * 
ὅθεν ἡμεῖς ἀτοδείκνυμεν, συνάγοντες ἀπὸ τῶν ἱερῶν γραμμάτων, ὅτι οἱ ἐν Ἰουδαΐοις 
προφῆται, ἐλ) αμπόμενοι ὑπὸ τοῦ θεΐου Πνεύματος τοσοῦτον, ὅσον ἦν καὶ αὐτοῖς τοῖς 
προφητεύουσι γρῆσιμον, προαπέλαυον τῆς τοῦ xpeitrovog εἰς αὐτοὺς ἐπιδημίας" καὶ διὰ 


LECT 11.} OF THE CHURCH OF GOD. 85 


The principles of Montanism,' on the other hand, grew out of 
the desire .to see perpetuated, through all future ages of the 
Church, that extraordinary effusion of spiritual gifts poured 
out in the days of the Apostles. It was heid by the sect which 
acknowledged Montanus as its leader, that the office of Prophet 
was to be permanent ; and that by the existence of this order of 
ministers was to be fulfilled Christ’s promise of the Paraclete, 
whose continued revelations were to possess equal or even superior 
authority to the voice of Scripture.’ According to this system, 
the influence of the Spirit, when exerted, produced a state of 
ecstacy in which the consciousness of the Prophet.is altogether 
suppressed ; and God alone speaks, as if in His own name, from 
the soul of which He takes possession.* With reasoning similar 
to that adopted in rejecting the heathen divination, the Church 
rose in opposition to this fanaticism ; and here also it was argued, 
that the existence of a state of unconsciousness proved that Mon- 
tanism was in no sort allied to the true prophetic Spirit. Thus, 
S. Epiphanius urges against Montanus, ‘“ that whatsoever the 
Prophets have said, they spake with understanding ;” he refers 
to their “settled mind,” ‘‘ their self-possession,” and their not 


τῆς πρὸς τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτῶν, iv’ οὕτως ὀνομάσω, ἁφῆς τοῦ καλουμένου ‘Ayiov 
Πνεύματος, διορατικώτεροί τε τὸν νοῦν ἐγίνοντο, καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν λαμπρότεροι 
ἘΞ ἘΞ εἰ δ᾽ ἐξίσταται, καὶ οὐκ ἐν ἑαυτῇ ἐστιν ἡ Πυθία, ὅτε μαντεύεται: ποδαπὸν 
νομιστέον πνεῦμα, τὸ σκότον κατεχεύαν τοῦ νοῦ καὶ τῶν λογισμῶν, ἢ τοιοῦτον ὁποῖόν ἐστι 
καὶ τὸ τῶν δαιμόνων yévoc.—Cont, Cels. vii. 4. t. i. p. 696. 

1 Cf. Bishop Kaye’s “ Account of the Writings of Tertullian,” ch. i.: and es- 
pecially Neander’s “Allgemeine Geschichte der Kirche,” ler Band, 2te Aufl. 5. 877 
ff; as well as the comparison of Gnosticism and Montanism in the Introduction to 
this latter writer’s ‘‘ Antignosticus.” 

? The revelations of the Paraclet» were to render perfect, and even supersede, all 
previous divine commands. Thus Tertullian writes: Si enim Christus abstulit quod 
Moyses preecepit, quia ab initio non fuit sic [S. Matt. xix. 8] * * * cur non et 
Paracletus abstulerit, quod Paulus indulsit."—De Monogamia, c. 14, p. 686. Ter- 
tullian elsewhere insists upon a similar gradation in the divine communications. e. g. 
“Ktenim est prophetica vox veteris Testamenti, ‘Sancti eritis, ὅθ. * * * Debemus 
enim ita ingredi in disciplina Domini * * * Ita enim et Apostolus dicit ‘quod 
Sapere secundum carnem,’ &c. * * * Item per sanctam prophetidem Priscam 
ita evangelizatur,” &e.—De Exhort. Castit. c.10. p. 670. See also t. i. p. 752, ed 
Oehler, Lipsize, 1853; for I should add, that this reference to Prisca is not received 
by Rigaltius in his edition. It occurs only in the ‘‘ Codex Agobardinus.” 

* Take, for example, one of the passages from Tertullian to which Bishop Kaye 
{p. 52) has referred, as containing ‘positive ailusions” to the system of Montanus: 
“Tn spiritu enim homo constitutus, preesertim quum gloriam Dei conspicit, vel guwm 
per ipsum Deus loquitur, necesse est excidat sensu obumbratus scilicet virtute divi- 
na.”—Adver. Marc. iv. c. 22. p. 537. Again: Adam, observes Tertullian, prophet- 
ically announced the mysterious union of Christ and the Church, when he spoke of 
the marriage tie—Gen. ii. 24; cf Eph. v.31. On that occasion “in illum Deus 
amentiam immisit, spiritalem vim qua constat prophetia.’—De Anima, c. 21. p. 324. 


86 THE IMMEMORIAL DOCTRINE [LECT, I 


being “ carried away as if in ecstacy.”* So also ἃ. Cyril of Je- 
rusalem, alluding to this question, says of the true Spirit : “‘ His 
coming is gentle ; most light is His burden ; beams of light and 
knowledge gleam forth before His coming.” 

With such extremes, however, on either side, which it alike 
opposed and rejected, the primitive Church did not shrink from 
expressing a decided opinion as to the effect produced upon the sa- 
cred penmen while actuated by the Spirit’s influence ;—an opinion 
clearly indicated by the series of similitudes which the different 
writers employed who approached the subject of Inspiration, and 
which were admirably calculated, had there been occasion to de- 
velop them, to illustrate that mutual co-operation of the Divine 
and Human agencies, which, as we have seen, forms the first 
Condition of our problem.* The language made use of plainly de- 
notes that the human element was not thought to have been sup- 
pressed or suspended, but to have been filled and exalted by the 
divine illumination ; and to this notion belongs that entire system 
of illustration so familiar to the Fathers from the earliest times. 

They compared the soul of the man of God, when subjected 
to the Divine influence, to an instrument of music into which 
the Holy Spirit breathes, or the strings of which He sways,’ 


1See Heer. XLVUI. lib. 11. t. i, passim. HE. g. ὁ προφήτης μετὰ καταστάσεως λογισ- 
μῶν, καὶ παρακολουθήσεως EAGAEL καὶ ἐφθέγγετο ἐκ Πνεύματος ‘Ayiov, Td πάντα 
ἐῤῥωμένως Aéywv.—Tbid. p. 404. It may be well to observe here, that what the Fathers 
denounce as false in this system is not the allegation that prophets received Divine 
Revelations while in a state of ecstacy, but,—and this they almost unanimously point 
out, as a proof of the falsehood of the claims of Montanus,—that his Prophetesses 
gave utterance to their asserted revelations during their state of unconsciousness. 
This fact seems to have been wholly overlooked by late writers. But on this subject 
see Lecture v., and Appendix G. 

2 Ἥμερος 7) παρουσία" εὐώδης ἡ ἀντίληψις" κουφότατον τὸ φορτίον " προαπαστράπ- 
τουσιν ἀκτῖνες φωτὸς καὶ γνώσεως, πρὸ τῆς Tapovoiac.—Catech. xvi. 16. p. 252. Cf. 
the remarks of the Benedictine Editor on the word ἀντίληψις. 

* See Lecture i. pp. 35-39. 

“Thus Athenagoras writes: συγχρησαμένον τοῦ Πνεύματος, ὡσεὶ καὶ αὐλητὴς αὖ- 
λὸν ἐμπνεύσαι.---- Ποσαί, pro Christ, ix. p. 286. For ἃ catena of such illustrations see 
Appendix G. 

I must here express my dissent from a remark of Mr. Westcott, in his valuable 
“Catena on Inspiration,” to the effect that “the language of Athenagoras * * * 
has been regarded, with good reason, as expressing the doctrine of Montanism.”— 
Elem. of Gosp. Harm. p. 166. It is true that Athenagoras considers the Prophets 
of the Old Testament to have uttered their predictions while in a state of ecstacy—thus 
adopting the sentiments of Philo; but that he held, on any point, the extravagant 
opinions of Montanus, cannot, I apprehend, be alleg2d with any justice. Thus Nean- 
der observes: ‘‘ Neither the remarks of Athenagoras concerning the second marriage, 
nor what he says of the ecstacy of the Prophets, when acting as blind organs of the op- 
eration of the Divine Spirit, can prove that he was a Montanist; for, as we remarked 
above, the Montanists said nothing on these points that was altogether new: they 


LECT. 11.] OF THE CHURCH OF GOD. 87 


like the plectrum of a harp or lyre, in order to evoke its vital 
tones. Such illustrations were obviously suggested by the very 
etymology of the word Inspiration—or, as 8. Paul terms it, 
Theopneustia ;* and when they are applied to men, as the agents 
of the Holy Spirit, we should remember that the tone and quality 
of the note depend as much upon the instrument itself, as upon 
the hand which sweeps over its strings.” And carrying out the 
analogy, we can easily see, when we reflect upon the full and deep 
harmonies of Scripture, how much of their power and beauty 
lies in the Divine union of the different human instruments 
through which we listen to the breathings of the Spirit. Thus, 
Origen, speaking of the consistency of the various parts of Scrip- 
ture, finely observed : “‘ Scripture, as a whole, is God’s one, per- 
fect, and complete instrument ; giving forth to those who wish to 
learn its one saving music from many notes combined ; stilling 
and restraining all strivings of the evil one, as David’s music 
calmed the madness of Saul.”* All such illustrations, no doubt, 
clearly recognise a relatively passive state in the sacred penmen ; 
but they by no means imply that such a state involved inaction 
or unconsciousness. On the contrary, the decided manner in 
which the very writers, who have made use of the similitudes in 
question, opposed the erroneous views as to Prophecy with which 
they had to contend, proves how sensibly they felt the distinction 
which subsists between the vibration of the strings of an instru- 
ment of music, and the pulsations of a human heart touched and 
animated by the Spirit of God.* Add to this, the marked omis- 


merely pushed to the extreme a way of thinking on religious and moral subjects 
which was already existing.” —Allg. Gesch. der Kirche, ler Band, 8. 1162. 

19 Tim. iii. 16. Πᾶσα γραφὴ θεύπνευστος: 

2 T avail myself here of some exeellent remarks of Mr Westcott (p. 164), whose 
language also I make use of, with a few alterations. 

3 Ἣν yap τὸ τέλειον olde καὶ ἡρμοσμένον ὄργανον τοῦ Θεοῦ εἶναι πᾶσαν τὴν ypa- 
φὴν, μίαν ἀποτελοῦν ἐκ διαφόρων φθόγγων σωτήριον τοῖς μανθάνειν ἐθέλουσι φωνὴν, κα- 
ταπαύουσαν καὶ κωλύουσαν ἐνέργειαν πᾶσαν πονηροῦ πνεύματος, ὡς κατέπαυσεν 7 Δαβὶδ 
μουσικὴ τὸ ἐν τῷ Σαοὺλ πονηρὸν rvetua—Comm. in Matt. v. 9, t. iii. p. 441. 

4 This idea is beautifully expressed by Hooker, at the close of a passage already 
quoted, Lecture i. p. 35, note *; where he refers to Ezek. iii, 3, on which text that 
passage is acomment: “ ‘J ate it, and it was sweet in my mouth as honey,’ saith the 
Prophet. Yea, sweeter, I am persuaded than either honey or the honeycomb. For 
herein they were not like harps or lutes, but they felt, they felt the power and 
strength of their own words. When they spake of our peace, every corner of their 
hearts was filled with joy. When they prophesied of mourning, lamentations, and 
woes, to fall upon us, they wept in bitterness and indignation of spirit, the arm of the 
Lord being mighty and strong upon them.”—Sermon v. on S. Jude, 11-21. Vol. iii, 
pn. 663. Keble’s ed. Cf. also Rudelbach, loc. cit. 265 Kap. 8. 27. 


88 THE IMMEMORIAL DOCTRINE [LECT. Π. 


sion by the Fathers,’ while adopting the language and analogies 
employed by Philo, of any allusion to that suppression of intel- 
lectuai energy and of the exercise of reason, which, as we have 
seen, was so much insisted upon by the Jewish philosopher. 
Neander, indeed, alleges that the opposition of the Church to 
Montanism introduced a considerable modification into its senti- 
ments respecting Inspiration ; and that the mode of regarding the 
operation of the Divine influence, which has just been considered, 
gradually disappeared.* I believe this opinion of the learned his- 
torian to be opposed to facts. The theory of Inspiration, which 
is founded upon the illustration of the lyre, began with S. Justin 
Martyr,’ about the year 140, and prior to the rise of Montanism :* 
and although the opinions of Montanus were still maintained in 
the sixth century,® we can trace a series of writers by whom the 
same similitude was employed, down to 8. Chrysostom, who on 
more than one occasion falls into the same train of thought. 
For example, he describes 8. Paul as ‘the chosen vessel, the 
temple of God, the mouth of Christ, the lyre of the Spirit.” 
III. To the third division of our subject belong those testi- 
monies of the Fathers which relate to the nature of the Bible as 
a written document, the joint product of the Holy Spirit and the 
men of God. The evidence on this point is varied and exten- 
sive ; a few quotations, however, must, for the present, suffice. 
There is nothing superfluous in the Bible. In 8. Mark’s ac- 
count of our Lord’s miracle at Jericho, the blind Bartimzeus, 
“casting away his garment, rose, and came to Jesus.”” Origen 
asks upon this : “ Shall we venture to say that these words have 

1 With the exception, of course, of Athenagoras. See p. 86, note ἡ, supra. 

2“ That mode of regarding Inspiration, which had passed over from the Jews, had 
up to this time [viz. of Tertullian] prevailed even among the teachers of the Church; 
but now, in consequence of the opposition to Montanism, this view was gradually 
suppressed.”—Allg. Gesch. der Kirche, B 1, 8. 895. 

3 Οἷς οὐ λόγων ἐδέησε τέχνης * * * ἀλλὰ καθαροὺς ἑαυτοὺς τῇ τοῦ θείου Πνεύ- 
ματος παρασχεῖν ἐνεργείᾳ, ἵν’ αὐτὸ τὸ θεῖον ἐξ οὐρανοῦ κατιὸν πλῆκτρον, ὥσπεο ὀργάνῳ 
κιθάρας τινὸς ἢ λύρας, τοῖς δικαίοις ἀνδράσι χρώμενον, τὴν τῶν θείων ἡμῖι' καὶ οὐρανίων 
ἀποκαλύψῃ yvoow.—Cohort. ad Gree. 8, p. 18. 

* Eusebius (Eccl. Hist. iv. 27), mentions that Apollinaris of Hierapolis (cire. A. Ὁ. 
170,) wrote against a sect of the Montanists. S. Epiphanius places the rise of Mon- 
tanism in the year 157. See Kaye’s “ Tertullian,” p. 13. 

® See Gieseler, “ Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte,” 106 Periode, § 47, 8. 168; 
who observes, that the last edicts against Montanism occur in the Code of Justinian, 
A. D. 530-532. ὃ 

5 Παῦλος ὁ ἀπόστολος, τὸ σκεῦος τῆς ἐκλογῆς, ὁ ναὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, τὸ στόμα τοῦ Χρισ 


τοῦ, ἡ λύρα τοῦ Πνεύματος.---1)6 Lazaro, Concie vi t. i. p. 186. 
7S. Mark, x. 50. 


LECT. 1|.} OF THE CHURCH OF GOD. 89 


been inserted in the Gospel without a purpose ? I do not believe 
that one jot or one tittle of the Divine instruction is in γαίῃ." 
Again : that Scripture can contain no contradictions is the uni- 
form language of every writer. Julius Africanus, having proposed 
one of the most ingenious modes of harmonizing the genealogies 
of Christ which has ever been suggested,” concludes his remarks 
by observing : “‘ Whether this explanation be correct or not, the 
Gospels in all points state the truth.” His Jewish adversary 
had attempted to force 8. Justin Martyr to admit that, according 
to the Christian exposition of the Old Testament, he must allow 
the existence of contradictions. δ. Justin replies: “I dare not 
either imagine or assert, that the Scriptures -contradict each 
other ; but were any passage to be adduced which has even the 
semblance of being opposed to another, being altogether per- 
suaded that no such opposition really exists, I will rather con- 
fess that I myself do not understand what is said.”* No less 


1 Kai τολμήσομεν φῆσαι μάτην ταῦτα ποοσεῤῥίφθαι τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ ; ἐγὼ μὲν οὖν ἰῶτα 
ἕν ἢ μίαν κεραίαν οὐ πιστεύω κενὴν εἶναι θείων uabnuatwr.—Comm. in Matt. xvi. 12. 
t. iii p. 734. 

? The apparent discrepancy in the accounts of the Genealogies has attracted atten- 
tion from the earliest times. Olshausen on S. Matt. i. 1, observes: “ Julius Africanus 
especially (Euseb. H. Εἰ i. 7.) had his attention engaged in it. Three hypotheses 
were formed with unusual acuteness for the solution of this difficulty.” That of Julius 
Africanus is as follows :—he supposes Heli (S. Luke, iii. 23) and Jacob (S. Matt. i. 15) 
to have been half-brothers by the same mother ; the same father would, clearly, have 
rendered the genealogies identical: and he also supposes Heli to have died without 

_issue, on which, by the law of the Levirate marriage (Deut. xxv. 5, 6)—so called 
from Levir, a husband’s brother—Jacob married the widow. From this union was 
born ‘‘ Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.” 
—S. Matt. i. 16. This hypothesis of Julius Africanus is thus stated in his Epistle to 
Aristides: ix διαφόρων δύο γενῶν εὑρήσομεν τόν τε ᾿Ιακὼβ καὶ τὸν ‘HAL ὁμομητρίους 
ἀδελφούς. ὧν ὁ ἕτερος ᾿Ιακὼβ ἀτέκνου τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ τελευτήσαντος ‘HAL, τὴν γυναῖκα 
παραλαβὼν, ἐγέννησεν ἐξ αὐτῆς τρίτον τὸν ᾿Ιωσήφ.---Βοιίῃ, Relig. Sacre, t. ii. p. 234. 

° Εἴτ᾽ οὖν οὕτως, εἴτ᾽ ἄλλως ἔχοι, * * * τὸ μέντοι εὐαγγέλιον πάντως" 
dAnbever.—Ibid. p. 251. 

* Trypho, pressed by quotations from the prophetical writings, had appealed to 
Isai. xlii. 8, in proof that God would not communicate His glory to another. §. Jus- 
tin proceeds to reply: 

Κἀγώ: εἰ μὲν ἁπλῶς καὶ μὴ μετὰ κακίας τούτους τοὺς λόγους εἰπὼν, ἐσίγησας, ὦ 
Ὀρύφων, μῆτε τοὺς πρὸ αὐτῶν προειπὼν, μῆτε τοὺς ἐπακολοθοῦντας συνάψας, συγγνωσ- 
"ὃς el, εἰ δὲ χάριν τοῦ νομίζειν δύνασθαι εἰς ἀπορίαν ἐμβάλλειν τὸν λόγον, iv’ εἴπω ἐναν 
τίας εἶναι τὰς γραφὰς ἀλλήλαις, πεπλάνησαι. οὐ γὰρ τολμήσω τοῦτό ποτε ἢ ἐνθυμηθῆναι, 
ἢ εἰπεῖν" ἀλλ᾽ ἐὰν τοιαύτη τὶς δοκοῦσα εἶναι γραφὴ προβληθῇ, καὶ πρόφασιν ἔχῃ. ὡς 
ἐναντία οὖσα, ἐκ παντὸς πεπεισμένος ὅτι οὐδεμία γραφὴ τῇ ἑτέρᾳ ἐναντία 
gary, αὐτὸς ui νοεῖν μᾶλλον ὁμολογῆσω τὰ eipnuéva.—Dial. cum Tryph. ο. 65, p. 162. 

To the same effect, 5. Dionysius of Alexandria—(obiit A. Ὁ. 264; and of whom 
Mosheim says, “the ancients used no flattery when they styled him Dionysius the 
Great,”—Cent. 1. part ii. ch. 2.)—referring to one of the difficulties connected with 
the harmony of the Resurrection, observes: “ Let us not suppose that the Evangelists 
differ, or that they are at variance with each other; but even though ther2 shall 
seer. to be some trifling question as to the matter in hand * * *_ gtill let us be 


90 THE IMMEMORIAL DOCTRINE [LECT. I. 


marked, from the very first, was the importance ascribed to each 
phrase which the sacred penmen employ. S. Irenzus observes, 
that ““ 5. Matthew might, no doubt, have said : ‘The generation 
of Jesus was on this wise ;’ but the Holy Ghost, foreseeing that 
men would deprave the truth, and fortifying us against their de- 
ceptions, says, by Matthew, ‘the generation of Christ was on 
this wise.’’” One instance more may be added, which places in 
the clearest light the belief, both of the members of the Church 
at large, and of the greatest of the Fathers, in the Divine source 
of the language of Scripture. I allude to a passage in the cor- 
respondence between 8. Augustine and 8. Jerome, with reference 
to the labors of the latter in expounding and translating the 
Bible ; and this instance is the more significant for our purpose 
when we consider the question discussed, as well as the solemn 
manner in which 8. Augustine solicits a reply. The Bishop of 
a certain city, which is not named, had desired to introduce 8. 
Jerome’s new version of the Old Testament. On the first occa- 
sion of its being used in public worship, the portion of Scripture 
read was the fourth chapter of the Book of Jonah, where it is 
said, at the sixth verse, that ‘“‘the Lord God prepared a gourd, 
and made it to come up over Jonah.” In this passage the word 
rendered in the old Italic version—“ gourd” (cucurbita), had 
been taken by S. Jerome to signify “‘ zvy” (hedera). The change 
was at once discovered, and a violent tumult was excited among 
the people, especially among such of them as were Greeks, who 
accused the Bishop of corrupting the text of the Bible. The re- 
sult, S. Augustine tells us, was, that the Bishop was compelled 
to restore the old translation, “‘ not wishing, after the great dan- 
ger he had encountered, to continue without a flock.” 


zealous honestly and faithfully to harmonize what has been said.” (Μηδὲ διαφωνεῖν, 
und? ἐναντιοῦσθαι τοὺς εὐαγγελιστὰς πρὸς ἀλλήλους ὑπολάβωμεν κ. τ. A.\—Epist. 
Canon. ap. Routh, Rel. Sacre, t. iii. p. 225. 

1 “Potuerat dicere Matthzus: ‘Jesu verd generatio sic erat;’ sed previdens 
Spiritus 8. depravatores, et premuniens contra fraudulentiam eorum, per Mattheum 
ait: ‘Christi autem generatio sic erat.’”—Cont. Her. lib. UL xvi. 2, p. 204. It is 
clear that had the copy of the Gospels used by 8S. Irenzeus given the correct reading 
of S. Matth. i. 1, viz., “Jesus Christ,” his argument would have been considerably 
streugthened. See D. Massuet’s note in loc. 

* “Quidam frater noster Episcopus, cum lectitari instituisset in ecclesia cui preest, 
interpretationem tuam, movit quiddam longe aliter abs te positum apud Jonam 
Prophetam, quam erat omnium sensibus memorizeque inveteratum, et tot etatum 
successionibus decantatum. F actus est tantus tumultus in plebe, maxime Grecis ar- 
guentibus et inclamantibus calumniam falsitatis, ut cogeretur Episcopus /oa quippe 


LECT. I!.] OF THE CHURCH OF GOD. 91 


I have thns attempted to give some idea of the sentiments 
cherished in every age by both Jews and Christians, as to the na- 
ture and value of the sacred documents committed to them 
charge.’ This belief was no merely speculative tenet ; nor did it 
rest upon some general feeling that the writings which taught the 
doctrines of revealed religion were deserving of reverence. Their 
conviction of the Divine source of that faith which the Bible 
unfolds, was not more firm than their conviction that the origin 
of the records which contain its history was, in like manner, Di- 
vine. Proofs, equally incontrovertible, were given of both. The 
soldier of the Cross, in our day, goes forth to heathen lands, sup- 
ported, it is true, by the sense of duty, and animated by his glo- 
rious message : but he is also cheered on his path, and stimulated 
in his toil,—for he is but man,—by the consciousness of universal 
sympathy, and the tokens of public applause. Once this was 
not so. There were days when the Christian missionary, althougk 
in the land of his fathers, and surrounded by the civilization of 
the world, was encountered on every side, did he suffer his 
thoughts to dwell upon aught but the task before him, by the 
certainty of persecution, and contumely, and wrong. “If the 
Tiber,” said Tertullian, “floods to the walls, if the Nile does 
not irrigate the fields, if the heavens are shut, if the earth 


civitas erat,) Judzorum testimonium flagitare. Utrum autem illi imperitia an malitia, 
hoc esse in Hebrzis codicibus responderunt, quod et Greci et Latini habebant atque 
dicebant. Quid plura? Coactus est homo velut mendositatem corrigere, volens, post 
magnum periculum, non remanere sine piebe.”—August. ad Hieron. Epist. lxxi. t. ii. 
Ρ. 161; S. Augustine concluding with the words: “Sed obsecro te per Dominum, ne 
te pigeat ad omnia respondere.” 

S. Jerome in his reply explains the cause of the commotion; “ Dicis me in Jonam 
Prophetam male quiddam interpretatum, et seditione populi conclamante, propter 
unius verbi dissonantiam Episcopum pzene Sacerdotium perdidisse; et quid sit illud 
* * * subtrahis * * * nisi forté, ut ante annos plurimos, cucurbita venit in 
medium, asserente illius temporis Cornelio et Asinio Pollione, me hederam pro cucur- 
bita transtulisse. Super qua re in commentario Jonze Prophetz plenius respondi- 
mus.”—Hieron. ad August. Ep. exii. t. i. p. 748. 

1 The kind of effect which the argument built upon this universal consent, is calcu- 
lated to produce, has been beautifully expressed by Mr. Coleridge: “In every gen- 
eration, and wherever the light of Revelation has shone, men of all ranks, conditions, 
and states of mind, have found in this Volume a correspondent for every movement 
toward the Better felt in their own hearts * * * As if on some dark night a pil- 
grim, suddenly beholding a bright star moving before him, should stop in fear and 
perplexity. But lo! traveller after traveller passes by him, and each, being ques- 
tioned whither he is going, makes answer, ‘I am following yon guiding Star!’ The 
pilgrim quickens his own steps, and presses onward in confidence. More confident 
still will he be, if by the wayside he should find, here and there, ancient monuments, 
each with its votive lamp, and on each the name of some former pilgrim, and a rec- 
ord that there he had first seen or begun to follow the benignant Star!”— Confess. of 
an Inquiring Spirit, Letter vi. p. 73. 


92 THE IMMEMORIAL DOCTRINE [LECT. IL. 


quakes, if there is a famine or a pestilence,—at once the cry is 
raised, CHRISTIANOS AD LEONEM.”’ In attestation of the truth 
and origin of the facts on which Christianity relies, no more con- 
vincing proof can be alleged than the endurance of such trials, 
and the triumphs thus achieved. The proof, too, is one of which 
Christian Apologists in every age have not been slow to avail 
themselves.” But the argument should not pause here. It ex- 
hibits the Church’s belief in the Divine character and inspiration 
of the Bible, no less than in the truth and heavenly origin of its 
contents. Jew and Christian alike were eager to sacrifice life it- 
self, not merely in defence of the doctrines of revealed religion, 
but of the very documents in which those doctrines were con- 
tained. Within so short a space of time as ten years before 
the public recognition of Christianity, the persecution of Diocle- 
tian carried torture and death to every section of the Church. 
The trial of the martyr’s faith was not now to sacrifice to the 
gods, or to adore the Emperor ;—the edict went forth, ‘ Give up 
your sacred writings, or die.” There was no longer that actual 


i “Si Tiberis ascendit ad moenia, si Nilus non ascendit in arva, si ccelum stetit, 
si terra movit, si fames, si lues, statim, CHRISTIANOS AD LrEoNEM.”—Apolog. c. 40, 
p. 36. 

? Thus 8. Justin Mart. writes: 

Οὐδένα οὐδέποτε ἰδεῖν ἐστὴν ὑπομείναντα διὰ τὴν πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον πίστιν ἀποθανεῖν " 
διὰ δὲ τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, ἐκ παντὸς γένους ἀνθρώπων καὶ ὑπομείναντας καὶ ὑπομένον- 
τας παντα πάσχειν ὑπὲρ τοῦ μὴ ἀρνήσασθαι Αὐτὸν, ἰδεῖν éoti.—Dial. cwm Tryph. ce 
121. p. 214. Cf Apol. ii. 12, p. 96. 

* Credner, in his treatise “ Zur Geschichte des Kanons.” p. 65, quotes “two docu- 
ments which are the most ancient which we possess on this subject.” In the Donatist 
controversy, Felix, Bishop of Aptungis, was accused of having been a ‘“ Traditor,” 
or one who had given up his sacred books, in the persecution of Diocletian. Felix was 
tried on this charge in the year 320, on which occasion were adduced the official 
documents, which had been received in his house in the year 303. The former of 
these documents runs as follows: “ Diocletiano VIII. et Maximiano VII. Coss.; XIV. 
Kal. Jun., ex actis Munatii Felicis, flaminis perpetui, Curatoris colonize Cirtensium. 
Cum ventum esset ad domum in qua Christiani conveniebant, Felix flamen perpetuus 
Curator Paulo Episcopo dixit, ‘ Proferte scripturas legis, et si quid aliud hic habetis, 
ut przecepto et jussioni parere possitis, ὅθ. ἡ This document is taken from the ‘‘ Mon- 
umenta vetera ad Donat. hist. pertinentia,” published by Dupin in his edition of the 
treatise of S. Optatus, ‘‘De Schism. Donatistarum,” Aut. 1702, p. 168. 

In the second document which Credner quotes, and which also is of the year 303, 
occurs a letter from Felix to Cecilianus, to the effect that inquiry had been made “an 
alique scripture legis vestre secundum sacram legem aduste sint, &c.”—ZIbid. p. 164. 

Ruinart refers to this same Kdict, with the addition: ‘‘et propositum est per co- 
lonias ‘et civitates Principibus et Magistratibus, suo cuique loco, ut LIBROS DEIFICOS 
peterent de manu Episcoporum et Presbyterorum.”—Acta Primorum Martyr. p. 355. 

In pursuance of this Edict “the divinely inspired Scriptures’—Kusebius records as 
an eye-witness—were publicly committed to tae flames: τὰς δὲ ἐνθέους καὶ ἱερὰς 

ραφὰς κατὰ μέσας ἀγορὰς πυρὶ παραδιδομένας αὐτοῖς ἐπεΐδομεν ὀφθαλμοῖς ----Εἶσο. 
Hist. lib. viii. 2 p. 377. Lactantius fixes the day on which this persecution com- 
menced, as the Terminalia “a. d. vii. Kal. Martias” (A. Ὁ. 303) “ Qui dies cum illux- 


LECY. 11.] OF THE CHURCH OF GOD. 93 


knowledge of the facts of Christ’s life, or of the teaching of His 
Apostles, which had cheered the martyr Stephen, and supported 
the dying Polycarp. The personal recollection of such matters 
had now ceased ; the belief in the facts had become, as with us, 
but historical : and yet such was the firm conviction of the Divine 
inspiration and heavenly origin of the Scriptures of Truth, that 
death with all its horrors was embraced rather than resign them 
to the heathen.’ To use the profound observation of Pascal : 
“ This is a sincerity which has no example in the world, nor its 
root in nature.” 


isset * * * repente, adhuc dubia luce, ad ecclesiam profectus * * * revul 
sis foribus, simulacrum Dei queritur: Scripture reperte incendundur,” &¢.—De Mort. 
Persecut. ο. Xii. 

1 Take the case of the martyrdom of the Bishop of Tibiura, in Africa: 

* * ‘Postera autem die Felix Episcopus venit Carthagine Tibiuram * * * 
cui Magnilianus Curator dixit, ‘ Felix Episcope, da libros, vel membranas quaseunque 
hibes.’ Felix Episcopus dixit, ‘Habeo, sed non do.’ Magnilianus Curator dixit, 
‘Prius est quod Imperatores jusserunt, quam quod tu loqueris. Da libros, ut possint 
igni aduri.’ Felix Episcopus dixit, ‘ Melius est me igne aduri, quam Scripturas Deifi- 
cas: quia bonum est obedire Deo magis quam hominibus’ * * * Magnilianus Ὁ, 
dixit, ‘Ibis ergo ad Proconsulem’ * * * Tunc profectus est Felix a Tibiura 
* * * cui dixit Proconsul, ‘Quare scripturas supervacuas non reddis?’ Felix 
Episcopus dixit, ‘Habeo sed non dabo.’ * * * Tune preefectus jussit Felicem de 
vinculis eripi; et dixit, ‘ Felix, quare Scripturas Dominicas non das? aut forsitan non 
habes?’ Cui respondit, ‘Habeo quidem, sed non do.’ Preefectus dixit, ‘ Felicem 
gladio interficite.’ Felix Episcopus, dixit voce clara, ‘Gratias tibi Domine, qui me 
dignatus es liberare.’”—Acta S. Felicis, Episc. et Mart., ap. Ruinart, p. 356. 

Again: in the year 304 several ladies of Thessalonica, named Agape, Chionia, 
Irene, &c., were burned alive under circumstances of revolting atrocity. The Pre-ect, 
we are told, addressed Irene as follows: 

“‘Dulcetius vero: ‘Quisnam tibi auctor fuit ut membranas istas atque scripturas 
ad hodiernum usque diem custodires?’ ‘ TIlle,’ inquit Irene, ‘Deus Omnipotens, qui 
jussit nobis ad mortem usque Ipsum diligere. Qua de causa non ause sumus Eum 
prodere, sed maluimus aut viventes comburi, aut queecumque alia nobis acciderint 
perpeti, quam talia scripta prodere.’"—Jbid. p. 394. 

2 Pascal is speaking of the Jews:—“ Cependant ce livre qui les déshonore en tant 
de facons, il le conservent aux dépens de leur vie. O’est une sincérité qui n’a point 
d’exemple dans le monde, ni sa racine dans la nature.” —ed Faugére, t. ii. p. 189. 

In proof of this assertion, we may adduce the language of Philo: 

Kai πλειόνων ἐτῶν διεληλυθότων, τὸ μὲν ὠκριβὲς οὐκ ἔχω λέγειν ὁπόσα, πλέω δ᾽ οὖν 
ἢ δυσχίλια ἔτη, μὴ ῥῆμά γε αὐτοὺς μόνον τῶν bw αὐτοῦ [ϑ8οῖϊ. Moses] 
γεγραμμένων κινῆσαι, ἀλλὰ κἂν μυριώκις αὐτοὺς ἀποθανεῖν ὑπο- 
μεῖναι θᾶττον, ἢ τοῖς ἐκείνου νόμοις καὶ ἔθεσιν ἐναντία πεισθῆναι.----1)6 Judeor, ex 
Egypto Profect. t. ii. p. 628. As to the sense of ἔθος, in this passage, compare the 
following : 

Dic ὁ ἱερὸς λόγος διδώσκει χρηστῆς ὑπολήψεως πεφροντικέναι, καὶ μηδὲν τῶν ἐν τοῖς 
ἔθεσι λύειν, ἃ θεσπέσιοι καὶ μείζους ἄνδρες ἢ καθ᾽ ἡμὰς ὥρ ι σα ν.--- 126 Migr, Abr. 
t. i p. 450. In both these places ἔθος clearly denotes not merely customs, rites; but 
tke Law itsell; Cf Acts, vi. 14; xv. 1; xxi. 21. 





LECTURE III. 


THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW—THE 
LOGOS THE REVEALER. 


Πρωκείσθω τοίνυν * * * τῆς ὑμετέρας πίστεως ὁ λόγος, καὶ Ebayyediov ὁ ὅρος, 
καὶ τῶν ᾿Αποστόλων τὸ κήρυγμα, καὶ τῶν Προφητῶν 7 μαρτυρία. 
8. ATHANasIus, Cont. Apollinar. ii. 4. 


“Scriptura omnis in duo Testamenta divisa est * * * Judi Veteri utuntur, 
nos Novo: sed tamen diversa non sunt, quia Novum Veteris adimpletio est, et in 


utroque idem Testator est Christus.” 
Lactrantius, Divin. Instit. iv. 20. 


“Prophetz, ab Ipso habentes donum, in Illum prophetaverunt.” 
S. BarnaBas, Epist. § v. 


Πάντα δι’ Αὐτοῦ, καὶ εἰς Αὐτὸν ἔκτισται. οὕτω δὲ, ὡς ἀληθῶς ὄντος καὶ ἐνεργοῦντος, 
ὡς Λόγου ἅμα καὶ Θεοῦ" δι’ οὗ ὁ Πατὴρ πάντα πεποίηκεν, οὐχ ὡς δι’ ὀργανου, οὐδ᾽ ὡς δὲ 
ἐπιστήμης ἀνυποστάτου * Ἔ * τοῦτον εἶναι, ὅς ἐκπληρῶν τὴν πατρικὴν βουλὴν τοῖς 
πατριάρχαις φαίνεται * * * ποτὲ μὲν ὡς ἴΑγγελος, ποτὲ δὲ ὡς Κύριος, ποτὲ δὲ 


Bede μαρτυρούμενος. Syn. ANTI Adv. Paulum Samosat. 
SYN. OCH. . αμην Hams 


᾿Ακόλουθα εὑρίσκεται καὶ τὰ τῶν Προφητῶν καὶ τὰ τῶν ΕΠαγγελίων ἔχειν, διὰ τὰ 
“eve πάντας πνευματοφύρους ἑνὶ Πνεύματι Θεοῦ λελαληκέναι. 
THEOPHILUS, Ad Autolycum, iii. 12, 


LECTURE III. 


THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW: THE LOGOS 
THE REVEALER. 


NO MAN KNOWETH WHO THE SON IS, BUT THE FATHER; AND WHO THE FATHER IS, BUT 
THE SON, AND ΒΕ TO WHOM THE SON WILL REVEAL HIM.”—S. Luke, x. 22. 


THE course of our inquiry respecting the inspiration of Holy 
Scripture has brought us to the examination of the Scriptures 
themselves. We have now to seek for the intimations given by 
the sacred writers as to the nature of the influence by which they 
were actuated ; and also to collect whatever inferences, relating 
to the manner of the Divine co-operation, can be drawn from the 
internal structure of the Bible in confirmation of the claim to 
infallible authority which it asyerts for itself, and which, as we 
have seen, has been in all ages ascribed to it by the Church of 
God. 

This line of argument is by no means fairly open to an ob- 
jection often urged against it. You require us, it is said, to 
receive the Bible as true because it is inspired, and you then 
undertake to prove its inspiration from its own pages. This is 
not so. It will be remembered that, from the outset, the present 
investigation has taken for granted the entire array of Christian 
evidence—embracing, together with the proofs of supernatural 
agency, the vast extent of antiquarian and grammatical criticism, 
the profound argument from the analogy of nature,’ as well as a 


1 Bishop Butler observes, in a well-known passage: ‘“ Hence, namely from ana- 
logical reasoning, Origen has with singular sagacity observed, that ‘he who believes 
the Scripture to have proceeded from Him, who is the Author of Nature, may well 
expect to find the same sort of difficulties in it as are found in the constitution of 
Nature.’ And in a like way of reflection, it may be added, that he who denies the 
Scripture to have been from God, upon account of these difficulties, may, for the very 
game reason, deny the world to have been formed by Him.”—Analogy, Introd. 

The passage which Butler has here quoted continues as follows: ἔστι δέ ye καὶ ἐν TH 


7 


98 THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW:  [LECT. ΠῚ, 


comparison of our sacred records with the whole range of profane 
history, and with the present aspect of the world. On such evi- 
dence we are entitled to assume the genuineness, the authenti- 
city, and the perfect truthfulness of the several books to which 
the name of Holy Scripture has been assigned. To examine, 
therefore, the nature of the influence under which those books 
have been drawn up, by the light which they themselves afford, 
can never be justly charged with logical fallacy. As well might 
we reject the personal statements of an ambassador, with respect 
to the nature of his powers and the source of his instructions, 
after we had verified his credentials, and satisfied ourselves as 
to his veracity. And thus the adducing arguments from Scrip- 
ture itself, in proof of its own inspiration, is no petitio principit. 
It would only become so, were we to assume the fact of its in- 
spiration in order to infer therefrom the credibility of its contents. 
This credibility we establish by independent proofs. We regard 
the sacred books, in the first instance, as historical documents 
drawn up by men whose honesty and truthfulness rest upon the 
ordinary grounds of human belief, and whose qualifications are 
further attested by that Society, to whose charge the writings 
which they composed have confessedly been committed. Having 
thus convinced ourselves of the authority of the Bible, that its 
doctrines are revealed, and that its facts are true, we can feel no 
scruple in admitting as accurate the character which its own 
writers ascribe to it. 

Still less can any objection be made to our drawing inferences 
as to the nature of the influence under which the Bible was com- 
posed, from the phenomena which its pages present to view, or 
its contents record. Such a process of reasoning is as sound as 
it is philosophical, The argument from Final Causes is admitted 
by all to afford the plainest evidence that the Creator of the world 
is God. The traces of design which are engraved upon the face 
of Nature, are universally received as the clearest proof that its 
Author is Divine. On the whole, then, the Bible, as history, 
testifies of Christ : Christ, moreover, as the Lord who animates 
His Church with His Spirit, testifies that Scripture is “ Holy 
κτίσει τινὰ ἀνθρωπίνῃ φύσει δυσεύρετα ἢ καὶ ἀνεύρετα. καὶ οὐ διὰ τοῦτο κατηγορητέον 
τοῦ ποιητοῦ τῶν ὅλων. φέρε εἰπεῖν, ἐπεὶ οὐχ εὑρίσκομεν αἰτίαν βασιλίσκων κτίσεως, καὶ 


τῶν ἄλλων ἰοβόλων θηρίων * * * οὕτω τοίνυν καὶ ἐν ταῖς θείαις γραφαῖς χρὴ ὁρᾷν. 
bri πολλὰ ἀπόκεινται ἐν αὐταῖς δυσαπόδοτα yuiv.—Selecta in Psalmos, t. ti. p. 528. 


LECT. I11.] THE LOGOS THE REVEALER. 99 


Scripture :”' and hence we do not, at starting, believe what is 
contained in the Bible, because it is inspired ;—but, having pre- 
viously established its claims to our belief, we are fully entitled to 
draw our main argument for its inspiration from its own pages.” 
The present stage of our inquiry brings before us a fact to 
which attention has been already drawn :—I mean the indissol- 
uble connection, and coequal authority, of the two great divisions 
of the inspired record. These two collections of ancient docu- 
ments we receive on the testimony of the bodies of men to whose 
trust they were respectively committed. The Jewish Church, in 
its day, has borne witness to the Old Testament; the Christian 
Church, in like manner, bears witness to the New.’ The Chris- 
tian Church, moreover, has an additional testimony to offer ;— 
testimony, I mean, to the continuity of both Old and New Tes- 
tament, to their mutual relation, and to the identity of their 
Divine Author.” From the very dawn of Christianity, it is true, 


1 “Die Schrift, als Geschichte, beweiset fiir Christus; Christus, als der seine Ge- 
meine mit seinem Geiste belebende Herr, beweiset fiir die Schrift als heilige Schrift. 
Hiedurch entgehen wir griindlich dem mit Recht geriigten Zirkel, dem in der Schrift 
Enthaltenen zu glauben, weil sie inspirirt ist, aber dass sie inspirirt sei, wiederum aus 
den Aussagen der Schrift zu beweisen.”—Sack, Apologetik, s. 429. 

? Modern writers have drawn a distinction between the jides humana and the fides 
divina of Scripture. The fides humana of the Bible is founded upon its authenticity, 
its credibility, aud its integrity. By the authenticity (αὐθεντία) of a writing is meant, 
that it has been composed by the author to whom it is ascribed; or, if the author has 
not named himself, that it has been composed at the time, among the people, and 
under the circumstances assigned in its contents. The credibility (ὠξιοπιστία) of a 
writing, which depends on the credibility of its author, and on its contents, consists 
in those particulars wnich gain for it public belief: The integrity of a writing appears 
from the proofs given that we possess it in the form in which it was originally com- 
posed, and that it has undergone no such falsifications as render its use uncertain, or 
118 author’s meaning undiscoverable. The jides divina of Scripture presupposes the 
fides humana. Cf. Bretschneider, ‘‘ Handb. der Dogm.” i. 5. 338. 

3. Tn his review of Twesten’s ‘‘ Vorlesungen,” Nitzsch well describes the function 
of the Church: “Die Kirche ist veranlassende, vermittlende, vorbereitende Ursache 
unserer Ueberzeugung yon der Gottlichkeit einer Schrift.”—Studien u. Kritiken, 
1828. s. 240. 

* On such testimony rests “The Canon of Scripture.” According to Christian 
usage, the word κανών does not differ in signification from what, in heathen philoso- 
phy. was termed decretwm or doyua,—namely, the leading principles of a philosophi- 
cal system. ‘Thus Seneca writes: ‘‘ Nulla ars contemplativa sine decretis suis est, 
qu Greeci vocant δόγματα. * * * Aliqua vel casu vel exercitatione, exibunt 
recta: sed non erit in manu regula, ad quam exigantur, cui credat recta esse qua 
fecit.”"—pist. 95. Hence the phrases κανὼν ἐκκλησιαστικός, and regula fidei, were 
used as synonymous, and as denoting both Old and New Testaments. Clemens Alex. 
defines the κανὼν ἐκκλησιαστικός to be “ the harmony of the Law and the Prophets 
with the New Testament.” It is—7 συνῳδία καὶ ἣ συμφωνία νόμου τε Kal προφητῶν, 
τῇ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ Κυρίου παρουσίαν παραδιδομένῃ drabykn—Strom. vi. 15. p. 803. 
Thus, ἰ90, Tertullian says of the Church of Rome in his day: ‘‘ Legem et Prophetas 
cum Hvangelicis et Apostolicis literis miscet, et inde potat fidem.”—De Prescr. Her. 
© xxxvi p 245. See Credner, “ Zur Geschichte des Kanons,” 5, 20-22. The firm 


100 THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW:  [LECT, IN, 


some have been found to question that identity, and even to as- 
sert that the two portions of the Bible are heterogeneous and 
opposed. Of such importance, however, has the exposure of 
this error been always deemed, that, as I have already pointed 
out, the Church declares by an express article of the Creed, that 
it was the Holy Ghost ‘‘ who spake through the Prophets.”* 

The revival, in our own day, of opinions whose tendency at 
least is not dissimilar,’ may, to a certain extent, be inferred from 
the absence of any reference to the Old Testament, in the great 
majority of modern treatises which allude to the subject of Inspi- 
ration ; an omission so remarkable, that a reader, unfamiliar with 
the Bible, might imagine that no Church of old had ever received 
“the oracles of God ;” that no prophet had ever foretold the Ad- 
vent of the Messiah ; that no elaborate ceremonial had ever 
typified the mysteries of the Kingdom of Christ. The revival 
of such views with respect to the Old Testament is not, however, 
a matter of mere inference. The opinion has been openly 
avowed, and eagerly defended, that the Old Testament is either 
totally unconnected with the New—except indeed by chance ; or 
that its importance has passed away, and that the Gospel dis- 
pensation can tolerate no remnant of the covenant under which 
the Jewish nation was chosen.’ It is needless to inquire to what 


belief of the Church in the continuity of both Old and New Testament is well de- 
scribed in the following verses of S. Gregory of Nazianzum: 


Χάρισμα δ᾽ οἷδα Πνεύματος θείαν δόσιν. 
Κηρυγμ᾽ ἀδήλων, τὴν προφητείαν λέγω" 
Εὐαγγέλιον δὲ, τῆς νέας σωτηρίας" 
᾿Αποστολὴν δὲ, συμμαχίαν κηρύγματος" 
Λόγου δὲ γνῶσιν, τὴν κατήχησιν, νέοις" 
Carmen xxxiv. t. ii. p. 622. 

1 See Lecture ii. p. 81. 

2 Thus Mr. Morell writes :—‘If the Jewish dispensation was Divine, if God com- 
muned in secret with the nation, if His Spirit was in the Church, then the writings 
which embody this religious state are inspired,—inspired, however, not as being 
penned under any specific commission from heaven, but as being the productions of 
those who were enlightened by special influences, and as being universally received 
by the Jews as the purest representations both of their national and their individual 
religious vitality. In such representations of course we could not expect to see de- 
scribed a higher religion or a more perfect morality than actually existed in those 
times; hence accordingly the imperfections both in moral and religious ideas which 
are mixed up with all their sacred writings.”"— Philosophy of Religion, p. 169. 

3 Bretschneider argues, that since ‘‘ doctrines relating to God and morality are far 
wore perfectly stated in the New Testament by Jesus and the Apostles, and have 
been sufficiently aitested by the latter as Divine; and since this system of teaching 
requires no attestation by means of the Old Testament, it is clear that there is no need 
of a theory of Revelation for the Old Testament, which cannot be ‘judex et norma 
fiaei οὐ vite’ for Christians in the same sense as the New Testament.”—Handb 


LECT, III. } THE LOGOS THE REVEALER 101 


extent we are to look upon such conclusions as the result of a 
false conception of spiritual religion, or how far they may be 
traced to certain dogmatic views on points of Christian doctrine ; 
it is more to our purpose to examine whether such sentiments 
have any foundation, and, if not, to expose their falsehood. Let 
us then examine, in the first place, under what aspect the Old 
Testament is presented to us in the New ;’ and inquire, secondly, 
whether a comparison of the two great divisions of the Bible 
offers such analogies, as may justify our maintaining that their 
authors equally shared in the same guiding influence of the Spirit 
of God. 


der Dogm. 1. 8. 159. See, too, the remarks of Twesten, quoted Lecture i. p. 27, note *; 
where also the opinions of Schleiermacher have been referred to, and where we have 
seen (note *) how this latter writer has gone so far as to consider “ the expressions 
of the nobler and purer heathenism” of equal value for Christians as the sentiments 
of the Old Testament. To which I may add that in his chapter, “ Von der Methode 
der Dogmatik,” Schleiermacher refuses to quote the Old Testament in support of his 
views, alleging it to be, as an authority, “ superfluous:”—Mithin erscheint das alte 
Testament doch fiir die Dogmatik nur als eine wberfliissige Autoritit.”—Der chrisil. 
Glaube, I. 58. 141. It may be well to observe, as bearing upon a topic to be discussed 
in the present Lecture, that Schleiermacher’s views on this subject appear to have 
arisen, from his having perceived but partially the connexion of Revelation with the 
Person of Christ. The leading feature of his system is, that the Person of the Re- 
deemer, and 7 alone, is the Revelation to man; and that a belief in the reality of this 
Person forms the essence of (what Schleiermacher terms) “the Christian conscious- 
ness.” Thus he concludes, “that if belief in the Revelation of God in Christ, and in 
the Redemption through Him, has not already sprung up spontaneously and origin- 
ally (auf dem urspriinglichen Wege), by means of experience as the demonstration of 
the Spirit and of power, neither miracles nor prophecies can produce it; nay more, 
that this belief would be just as immoveable, even if Christianity could point to neither 
prophecies nor miracles.”—Jbid. s. 97. According to this theory, therefore, all Reve- 
lation is excluded, except the fact of Christ’s Personal appearance, and the Redemp- 
tion which He effected :—in other words, because Christ is Himself (in the highest 
sense) the Revelation of God, Schleiermacher infers that He cannot have communi- 
cated Divine knowledge by the intervention of human agents. Hence his denial of 
any revelation in the Old Testament, and his undervaluing Inspiration in general. 
See Lecture i. pp. 34, 35, supra. 

Sack, commenting on the various modes of stating this principle in the successive 
editions of the ‘‘ Christliche Glaube,” truly remarks that all those statements have this 
in common, “dass eigentliche Offenbarung nur in der Person Christi sei, ausser der- 
selben nur in dem allgemeineren Sinne, wie man es auch von Entstehung eines neuen 
Kunstlebens sagen konne.—Apologeti&. 5. 123. And Nitzsch justly sums up this 
theory of Schleiermacher by saying: “ This theologian has taken his idea of Revela- 
tion, not from the Holy Scriptures, but from the philosophy of the general usage of 
language; and indeed this is the reason why he considers this idea as too slight tc 
express the peculiarity of Christianity. That which is wholly direct in the Revela- 
tion would appear to him to be perfectly applicable only to Christ, as an intelligent 
recipient; but it is deserving of remark that, according to Scriptural guidance, this 
view is here inapplicable; for * * * an ἀποκάλυψις, or revelation in the above 
sense, has not been given to Christ. That He taught what He heard is some- 
thing quite different, for that even does the Holy Spirit."—System der Christi. 
Lehre, § 24. 

* As to the principle on which the writers of the New Testament have appealed 
to the Old, see infra, Lecture vii. 


102 THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW:  [LECT. Ih 


Now when we seek for the judgment passed by Him, who is - 
the central point to which all the rays of Revelation converge, we 
are at once met by a statement, which might seem to set this 
question at rest for ever. Christ has said, ‘‘ Search the Scrip- 
tures’—that is, of the Old Testament—‘“‘ they are they which 
testify of Me.”’ In the vision of the Prophet Evangelist, the 
same truth has been repeated by a messenger from heaven : “‘ The 
testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”* The Old Testa- 
ment, then, “ testifies” of Christ—and this by no isolated pre- 
dictions ; for the entire history of God’s Revelation, under the 
former dispensation, is one great reference to the future Mes- 
siah : and upon that revelation by facts, and prediction by facts, 
is grounded that series of predictions by words, which God has 
been pleased to communicate, in a supernatural manner, by His 
special agents. 


1§. John, v.39. The constant use which our Lord Himself makes of the Old Tes- 
tament may, indeed, be considered to decide this question :—especially His manner 
of quoting it on the occasion of His Temptation (S. Matt. iv. 4, 7, 10). Parallel to 
this instance is that in which the angel, when announcing the birth of John the Bap- 
tist (S. Luke, i. 17), makes use of the prediction of Malachi: “ Behold I will send you 
Elijah the prophet, before the great and dreadful day of the Lord. And he shall turn 
the heart of the fathers to the children,” &c.—Mal. iv. 5, 6: on which Olshausen pro- 
foundly observes:—‘ Such cases are clearly not to be understood as if angels quote 
from Scripture, but the words occur én Scripture, because it has been so resolved in 
the heavenly world to which the spiritual beings who speak belong. The support- 
ing a thought by the words of Scripture is to be regarded only as the clothing it in 
the form accessible to man, and which he can comprehend. Angels, therefore, do 
not quote the language of Scripture, because they desire to take a proof from the Bi- 
ble, or a reference for their words; but the thoughts applied are to be found in the 
Bible, because they contain a truth which holds good 88 well in heaven as upon 
earth.”— Comm. ἐδ. Luc. i. 17, B. i. 5, 93. 

? Rey. xix. 10, “I am thy fellow servant” said the Angel to S. John, ‘and of thy 
brethren that have the testimony (τὴν μαρτυρίαν) of Jesus: * * * for the testimony 
(7 μαρτυρία) of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy :” i.e. (as Bishop Hurd remarks)—“ the 
testimony of, or concerning Jesus. * * * J affirm its sense to be ‘That the scope 
and end of Prophecy was the testimony of Jesus.’” On Prophecy, Sermon ii. Com- 
pare with this our Lord’s own words just quoted: ἐρευνᾶτε τὰς γραφάς * * * καὶ 
ἐκεῖναί εἶσιν ai μαρτυροῦσαι περὶ guov.—S. John, v. 39. 

The view adopted by Hengstenberg is but slightly different: ‘‘ The testimony of 
Jesus is the testimony which Jesus delivers. According to the point of view taken 
in the Apocalypse, the testifier is always properly Christ—cf. at ch.i.2; vi.9. * * * 
All doubt is removed by the explanation given in this passage itself. According to 
it, ‘those who have the testimony of Jesus’ is equivalent to those who have the Spirit 
of Prophecy. * * * The for introduces the reason, on account of which the angel 
had spoken of a testimony of Jesus. It stands in this, that the testimony of Jesus, 
which alone could here be made account of, is all one with the Spirit of Prophecy. That 
the testimony concerning Christ, is, at the same time, the testimony of Christ; and,— 
prophecy has its source in the spirit of prophecy,—these correspond to each other. 
Christ testifies in the prophets through His Spirit (i Pet. i. 11).”—The Revelation of 
S. John expouuded. (Clarke’s For. Theol. Lib. vol. ii, p. 256.) It will be seem, as we 
proceed, how this view of the passage falls in with the main object of this Lecture. 


LECT 111.] THE LOGOS THE REVEALER. 103 


Those parts of the New Testament in which the Holy Ghost 
has brought to full maturity the spirit of the Old Testament το. 
velations are, the Gospel of ὃ. Matthew, the Epistle to the He- 
brews, and the discourse of 8. Stephen in the seventh chapter of 
the Acts of the Apostles.’ §. Stephen, when defending himself 
from the charge of “‘ blaspheming the holy place and the Law,” 
takes occasion to prove, negatively, that the Law and the Temple, 
though Divine, were not the highest and last form of God’s 
Revelation.’ ὃ. Matthew takes the positive line of argument. 
that Jesus is the promised seed of Abraham, ‘the Son of 
David :’—an argument which opens by exhibiting the three 
great periods of the Genealogy,* and which unfolds itself on the 


1 Cf. “ Der Brief an die Hebraer erklart,” von Dr. J. H. A. Ebrard, K6nigsberg, 
1850. Hinleit., 8. 5. There is no portion of the New Testament on which go little at- 
tention has been bestowed by commentators, or which has suffered so much from mis- 
conception, as that passage in the Acts of the Apostles which relates to S. Stephen. 
Some remarks on the subject of his address, and, especially, of the ‘“‘demonstrable his- 
torical mistakes” charged against him (see Alford’s Greek Testament, Proleg, vol. i. 
§ 6.), will be found in Appendix H. Meanwhile I would draw attention to the im- 
pressive manner in which S. Luke dwells upon the character of the First Martyr. He 
alone of the Deacons is described as ‘‘a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost.” — 
Acts, vi. 5. “Stephen,” it is added, ‘full of faith and power, did great wonders and 
miracles among the people” (ver. 8); the learning of the Jewish synagogue was unable 
“to resist the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spake” (ver. 10); and at ch. vii. 55, 
it is said of him again, ὑπώρχων δὲ πλήρης Πνεύματος ᾿Αγιόυ, ἀτενίσας εἰς τ. ovp.— 
that he was a person “full of the Holy Ghost,” not one who became so (γενόμενος) at 
that moment ;—as appears from the junction of the aorist ἀτενίσας, with ὑπάρχων. Cf 
Luger, ‘‘ Die Rede des Stephanus,” s. 9. 

? “Then there arose certain of the synagogue * * * disputing with Stephen 
* * * and set up false witnesses which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blas- 
phemous words against this holy place and the Law.”—Acts, vi. 9, 13. 

5.5. Stephen, reviewing the course of Jewish history, argues: (1.) That the Law is 
not to be regarded as an isolated revelation, but as that in which the promise already 
given to Abraham (Acts, vii. 5) received its fulfilment; nay, more, that it carried in 
itself the pledge of another revelation still future, and connected with the accomplish- 
ment of the former promise:—“ A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto 
you,” &c. (ver. 37). The Law was added, writes S. Paul, “ till the Seed showd come 
to whom the promise was made.”—Gal. iii. 19. (2.) That the temple built by Solomon 
could not have been the full realization of the Divine purpose: “The Most High 
dwelleth not in temples made with hands,” &c. (ver. 46-50). (3.) To the Jews it was 
particularly offensive that Jesus, whom they had crucified, should be represented as 
the great Prophet of the new dispensation. S. Stephen argues, therefore, that such 
a fact could form no objection whatsoever against Jesus, for this same rejection of 
God’s messengers had accompanied every former phase of Revelation: ‘‘ Which of 

“the Prophets have not your fathers persecuted ?” (ver. 52). See Ebrard, “ Kritik der 
Evang. Geschichte,” s. 689; and Luger, ‘‘ Die Rede des Stephanus,” 5. 27. 

‘ I. The period ascending to David. II. That descending to Jechonias. IIL. 
That, in which the house of David is found in poverty, extending to the Blessed Vir- 
gin. Cf Ebrard, ‘Der Br. an die Hebr.” 5. 5. Or, as Townson expresses it: ‘He 
begins with entitling Jesus Christ ‘ the son of Abraham,’ and the ‘son of David :’ ard 
livides his genealogy into three parts, answering to so many remarkable periods in 
their history; every one of which was early distinguished by predictions concerning 
the Messiah, peculiarly interesting to them: the first by the promise to Abrahaun, 


104 THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW:  [LECT. 1Π. 


field of the New Testament narrative." The Epistle to the He- 
brews, on the other hand, sets out from the Old Testament, the 
leading features of which it formally develops in a systematic 
treatise ; and points out how the former Scriptures, in all their 
details, ever refer to Jesus. It proves that the Revelation and 
Redemption by the Messiah, promised in the Old Testament, 
have already become absolute and complete ; and that, while by 
His coming, the types of the Law, if understood literally, have 
received their full accomplishment, their spiritual signification, 
nevertheless, and allusive power, abide for ever as exponents of 
the Person and Office of Christ.* But to proceed with somewhat 
more particularly. 

We observe that our Lord, throughout the entire duration of 
His ministry, represents Himself as fulfilling, in Person, the 
scheme of the former covenant : we know, too, that He has made 
the Old Testament the basis of His teaching, continually em- 
ploying it, as it was received in His time by the Jews, without 
letting fall the slightest hint that any portion of it was done 
away. So far from stating anything to that effect, He has ex- 
pressed Himself in a manner which proves the very reverse, em- 
ploying language by which He has not only defined the perma- 
nent authority of the Old Testament, but also indicated its true 
place in the new dispensation. The words are recorded by ὃ. 
Matthew, whose Gospel, we also know, was designed to illustrate 
the connection of the two Covenants :—“ Think not,” said Christ, 
that ‘in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed,’ (Gen. xxii. 18) 
* * * the second, by assurances to David, that the promised seed should spring 
from his loins (2 Sam. vii. 16) * * * the third, by marking an era of seventy 
weeks, or 490 years, before the end of which the Messiah should come (Dan. ix. 24— 
27).”—Discourses on the Four Gospels, iv. ὃ 5, p. 116, Elrington’s ed. 

1 For references to the title “Son of David,” cf. 5. Matt. ix. 27; xii. 23; xv. 22; 
xx. 30, 31; xxi. 9; xxii. 42, 45. 

? “The history of the people, as well as its sacred rites, are all applied to Chris- 
tian relations. In the fourth chapter, the march of Israel from Egypt to the land of 
Canaan, is used as a type of the march of the people of God, in spirit, to the land of 
eternal repose. With the High Priest of the Old Testament is Christ—the Eternal 
High Priest—compared ; and in the seventh chapter, He is found again in Melchize- 
dek, the king of Righteousness and of Peace. In the ninth chapter, follows a widely- 
drawn parallel of the spiritual blessings of the New Testament, its ordinances and 
privileges, with the mstitutions of the old Levitical Priesthood; of the Tabernacle of 
Testimony, with the perfect Tabernacle of God not made with hands; of the sacrifice, 
with the eternal, atoning Sacrifice of the Son of God. Even the parts of the Taber- 
nacle of Testimony are again referred to in a spiritual sense: the flesh of the Son of 
God, it is said, is the veil; through the blood of Jesus we have boldness to enter into 


the Holy Place,—He has prepared it for us as a new and living way.”—Olshausen, 
Ein Wort iuber tiefern Schriftsinn, 5. 59. 


LECT. 11.] THE LOGOS THE REVEALER. 105 


“that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets: I am not 
come to destroy, but to fulfill’ Christ here points out that, of 
what might appear new in His office or His teaching, there was 
nothing which could be separated from its historical foundation. 
In this passage He exhibits the internal connection of Old and 
New Testament. His words denote, in the first place, the un- 
questionable authority of the former Scriptures ; secondly, that 
the New Testament can be regarded only as their fulfilment ; 
thirdly, that the Law, consummated in this sense, is Divine and 
Everlasting. In the former part of this statement our Lord de- 
clares that the Old Testament was not abrogated—an opinion then 
held, perhaps, by His followers ;? in the latter, He announces that 
such was not the object of His ministry. And it is to be well 
noted that the language employed by Him, in the verses which 
follow, to express the permanence of the Old Testament,’ He 
has elsewhere made use of, in order to assert the same of His own 
revelations: ‘‘ Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words 


1 §. Matt. v.17. This passage has been felt, from the earliest times, to be the 
authoritative announcement of the connexion of Old and New Testament. It was, 
accordingly, the chief difficulty of Marcion; and, in general, of the Gnostic school. 
Thus Tertullian writes: ‘ Venisse Se [scil. Christum] non ut Legem et Prophetas dis- 
solveret, sed ut potius adimpleret. Hoc enim Marcion, ut additum, erasit.”—<dr. 
Marcion, iv. 7, p. 507. The manner in which the Marcicnites attempted to evade the 
force of this text by a different reading, is stated in the Dialogue “ De recta fide adv. 
Marcionitas:” A. φανερῶς γοῦν τοῦ Σωτῆρος πληρῶσαι ἐλθόντος τὸν νόμον, οὗτοι κατα- 
λύειν φάσκουσι. MA. Τοῦτο οἱ ᾿Ιουδαϊσταὶ ἔγραψαν, τὸ" οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι τὸν νόμον, 
ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι: οὐχ οὕτως δὲ εἶπεν ὁ Χριστός: λέγει yap, οὐκ ἦλθον πληρῶσαι τὸν νό- 
μον, ἀλλὰ KataAdoa.—Ap. Origenis Opp., t. i. p. 830. 

The opposition to the force of this text was further encountered by S. Augustin, 
(cont. Faust. xix. 6, Ὁ. viii. p. 316), S. Isidor. Pelus. (lib. 1. Epist. 371, ad Pansoph. 
p. 97), Theodoret. (Heeret. Fab. lib. v. § 17, Ὁ. iv. p. 291). Cf Tholuck, ‘ Auslegung 
der Bergpredigt,” s. 131. 

2 The intention of Christ’s words, “ Think not (μὴ νομίσητε), &c.”—was, it may be, 
to set aside a misconception of the passage: ‘“ Behold the days come, saith the Lord, 
that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Ju- 
dah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers,” &e—Jer. xxxi. 
31, 32. 

8 “Verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass (ἕως dv παρέλθῃ), one 
jot, or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law till all be fulfilled."—ver 18. Cf. 
too, ver 19, as further illustrating the importance to be attached to the Law: ‘“ Who- 
soever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments (τῶν ἐντολῶν τούτων 
τῶν ἐλαχίστων), ἀκ." It is to be remarked also, that the words of Christ, fixing, 
as it were, a certain period when the Law shall pass away—éwe ἂν πάντα γένηται--- 
point to a certain epoch of which Prophets and Apostles have spoken. Cf. for ex- 
ample, the references to the “new heavens and the new earth” by Isaiah (ch. Ixv. 17; 
Ixvi. 22), and by S. John (Rev. xxi. 1.): see also 1 Cor. xv. 24. Our Lord, therefore, 
here expresses something more than a mere proverbial description of the permanence 
of the Law, such as He has given elsewhere—“ It is easier for heaven and earth to 
pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.”—S. Luke, xvi. 17. See Ritschl, “ Die Eut- 
a steh. der altkath Kirche,” 8, 28. 


106 THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE ΝΕ: [LECT. ΠῚ, 


shall not pass away,’”’—that is, the Old Testament and the say- 
ings of Christ are alike imperishable, because both are the Word 
of God. Nor does our Lord confine this solemn ratification to 
any particular portion of the former Scriptures. Here, it is 
true, he speaks but of “‘ the Law and the Prophets,” and in an- 
other place* He refers merely to ‘‘ the Prophets ;’ but we know 
that in 8. John’s Gospel’ He frequently cites certain words from 
the Psalms, which, He observes, were ‘‘ written in the Law ;” 
and in §. Luke’s He adopts the Old Testament in full, according 
to the received division of the Jews, when He says that “all 
things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses, 
and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms concerning Me.”* 

But further :—in this passage from the fifth chapter of 8S. 
Matthew, the expressions “to destroy,” and “ to fulfill,” do not 
of themselves present an immediate contrast.° Opposed to the 


1S. Matt. xxiv. 35. The fact that S. Matthew, alone of the Evangelists, has 
preserved both these expressions of our Lord, is not to be overlooked. There can 
be no doubt the design was, that one passage should illustrate the other. 

2 8. Luke, xviii. 31. 

8S. John, x. 34; xii.34; xv. 25. Cf also 5. Matt. xiii. 35, where words from the 
Psalms are quoted as ‘spoken by the Prophet.” 

4S. Luke, xxiv. 44. Rudelbach observes:—‘‘The threefold division here,— 
where, for the last time, an allusion to the Old Testament falis from the lips of Jesus, 
—combined with the earlier mode of citation, ‘the Law and the Prophets,’ is not. 
without deep significance. The Lord has hereby sanctioned ail the divisions which 
were current in the Jewish Church, and attested in the most perfect manner the in- 
tegrity of the whole of the Old Testament.”—Die Lehre von der Inspir., 1841, H. iv. 
s. 38. §S. Paul (1 Cor. xiv. 21) quotes Isai. xxviii. 11, with the words, ‘In the Law 
it is written ;” and in Rom. iii. 19, he describes his previous citations from both Isaiah 
and the Psalms as ‘“‘ what the Law saith.” Cf too, the words recorded by Josephus: 
ὃς ἐδίδασκεν ἡμᾶς, ἔτι Ov σὺν ἡμῖν. τὸν νόμον καὶ τοὺς mpodyTac.—De Maccabeis, 18, t. 
ii. p.519; under which description the speaker expressly includes Daniel, the Psalms, 
and the Proverbs ;—each of these instances clearly proving how completely unsup- 
ported, by ancient Jewish usage, is that theory of the modern Rabbins as to the dif- 
ferent degrees of Inspiration under which the Old Testament was written (see Lecture 
ii. p. 62, note *), The quotations here adduced show, beyond any doubt, that in the 
days of Christ the Jews included the whole body of the Old Testament writings under 
the name of the Law, which portion of the Bible their modern representatives would 
exalt so highly above all the other books. 

δ᾽ Καταλῦσαι, πληρῶσαι. The phrase καταλύειν νόμον, ἴῃ Hellenistic as in classic 
Greek, is equivalent to ἀκυροῦν : see 8. Matt. xv. 6 (“Ye have made the command- 
ment of God of none effect;” or rather, ‘Ye have cancelled, abrogated the word 
of God”); or Gal. iii. 17 (“The law cannot disannul” the covenant.) In this latter 
instance follows 5. Paul’s customary phrase καταργῆσαι, expressing the result which 
must have attended the ὠκύρωσις νόμου ;—the “ disannulling of the covenant” must, 
of itself, ‘make of none effect,” “leave idle, or useless,” “the promises.” (Cf. S. 
Luke, xiii. 7, the barren fig-tree “cumbereth,” “makes barren,” καταργεῖ, “the 
ground.”) On the other hand, πληροῦν vouov signifies, in Hellenistic as in classic 
Greek, explere legem, peragere que sunt officti. (Cf. S. Matt. iii. 15, “ Thus it becometh 
us to fulfil—7Anpdcar—all righteousness.” Acts, xiv. 26, “The work which they 
fulfilled”. —6 ἐπλήρωσαν). Its use is sometimes founded on the trope of filling a meas 
ure: “Fill ye up then (πληρώσατε) the measure of your fathers.” S. Matt. xxiii. 32. 


LECT. III. ] THE LOGOS THE REVEALER. 107 


abrogation of a Law we should rather look forits confirmation, or 
its re-institution ; and §. Paul, in his Epistle to the Galatians, 
supplies the complete idea, when he places in opposition, the 
phrases ‘‘ to destroy,” and “to build again.” It was not, how- 
ever, the Divine will to perpetuate the former scheme, but to 
extend and to develop it ;? and hence the absence of complete 
antithesis in the expressions which we are considering. By them 
our Lord would seem to suggest the significant figure of a build- 
ing, to the foundations of which additional strength has been 
given, and which has been in part remodelled, but which, at the 
same time, has been renovated and brought to completion on its 
former foundations ;—-the Architect now bringing to light certain 
features of His original design which had previousiy been con- 
cealed from view, hereby exhibiting their relation to the stability 
of the entire structure.’ Hence the Old Testament is the basis, 
on which the New was to be erected. It presents the outlines 
of the picture, which were afterwards to be filled up. It affords 
the shadow of good things, while the body was of Christ.* No 
stronger confirmation, indeed, can be given of the fact that 
Christ was, in His own Person, the fulfilment of the Old Testa- 
ment, than His statement that He could not withdraw Himself 


For its signification, ‘‘to fulfil” a prophecy, see Lecture iv. Cf. Tholuck, “ Die Berg- 
predigt,” s. 133. 

1 “Tf I build again the things which I destroyed” —Ei yap ἃ katéAvoa, ταῦτα 
πάλιν oikod0u0.—Gal. ii, 18. See Olshausen on S. Matt. v. 17. B. is. 212. 

2 It has been already pointed out (Lecture i. p. 28), that this principle of develop- 
ment has been, from the first, the characteristic of Revelation. 

3 Twesten forcibly observes of the words of Christ and His Apostles, which refer 
to the Old Testament, that “λῦσαι is ever a πληρῶσαι; that καταργῆσαι is, at the 
same time, a στῆσαι." Thus S. Paul writes, ‘‘Do we then make void (καταργοῦμεν) 
the Law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish (ἱστώνομεν) the Law.” (Rom. 
ili. 31.)—Vorles. iiber die Dogm. ler Band, s. 333. Compare, too, the Apostle’s lan- 
guage at the close of this Epistle (ch. xiii. 8-10), ‘“ Love is the fulfilling (πλήρωμα) of 
the Law.” 

4 Col. ii. 17. Olshausen has remarked in his second Tract on ‘‘ The deeper sense 
of Scripture” that—‘‘ The Law, with all its ordinances, is like a grain of seed which 
includes in itself the whole law of formation of the plant. Should the plant spring 
up, the grain of seed must die; a power, which would cause it to continue in its isoe 
lated subsistence, would be just as destructive as the Judaizing teachers, with whom 
Paul was forced to contend. But notwithstanding such a fact, the law of the germ 
which lives no longer, invisibly penetrates the entire plant; so that in the plant’s 
concentrated formations, the law, renewing its youth, repeatedly presents itself again 
in the fruit. Thus the Law was apparently dissolved by Christ, but only in order to 
be fulfilled, in its spirit, in every iota.”—Noch ein Wort, &c., 8.23. Jehovah, Himself, 
announced this same truth by the last of the Prophets: ‘ From the rising of the sun. 
even unto the going down of the same, My name shall be great among the Gen- 
tiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto My name, and a pure offer 
ing.”—Mal. i. 11. 


108 THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW:  [LECT. IIL 


from that death, the mere prospect of which overpowered His 
soul, because He would thereby contravene the language of 
Prophecy,—“‘ How then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled that it 
must be Ὁ" 

It has been attempted by some writers to take a sort of mid- 
dle course in this question, and to make a distinction between 
the contents of the Old Testament. Divine authority they allow 
to those parts only which bear directly upon the office of Christ ; 
while they deny Inspiration to those other portions which, they 
conceive, must be opposed to the Christian scheme: and in this 
latter class, the writers in question place the Law, as being that 
one of “ the two covenants” contrasted by 8. Paul,’ “ which gen- 
dereth to bondage,” and the ministration of which he elsewhere 
terms that “‘ of the letter.”* Such writers are, however, forced 
of themselves to admit, that the exact line of distinction cannot 
be drawn ; that the Law, too, has its prophetical side ; and that 
we have it upon the authority of Christ himself, that Moses 
“wrote” of Him.* In truth, this notion, which would represent 
the doctrines of Scripture as distinct from its history, and which 
assumes that portions of the Old Testament, which it regards 
merely as the annals of a particular nation,° do not treat of Christ, 


1S. Matt. xxvi. 54. Compare, also, the striking passage: “After this Jesus,— 
knowing that all things were now accomplished,—that the Scripture might be fulfilled, 
saith, I thirst."—S. John, xix. 28. A short time previously he had rejected the prof- 
fered “wine mingled with myrrh” (5. Mark, xv. 23); but at this moment, in the ex- 
tremity of bodily exhaustion (Ps. xxii. 15), he accepts the “vinegar to drink” (Ps. 
lxix. 21);—the Evangelist expressly pointing out the fulfilment of the prediction: 
Jesus said “It is finished {τετελεσται); and He bowed His head, and gave up the 
ghost.” —S. John, xix. 30. See the excellent remarks of Rudelbach, ‘‘ Die Lehre von 
der Inspir.” 1841, H. iv. s. 35. 

* Gal. iv. 24. $2 Cor. iii. 6. 

*S. John, v. 46. Thus Twesten writes:—‘ We have distinguished in the Old Tes- 
tament elements of two kinds, those whereby it is related to the New, and those 
whereby it is opposed to it. It lies in the nature of the case, that the former only, 
not the latter, can be referred to the Spirit of Christ: not the Law, but the Promises. 
Moreover, all those passages which prove an inspiration of the Old Testament, relate, 
in point of fact, to prophetic writings, including the Psalms (for David also was a 
prophet, Acts, 11. 30). Hence Paul contrasts the two Testaments, as the son of the 
bondmaid born after the flesh, and the son of the freewoman born after the Spirit 
(Gal. iv. 24, 29): their service, too, he opposes as that of the letter and of the spirit 
(2 Cor. iii. 6, &c). Since, however, even Moses has written of Christ (John, v. 46), 
since even the Law has a typical and also a prophetical side,—one dare not separate 
mechanically what is inspired in the Old Testament from what is not.”— Vorles. iiber 
die Dogm., ler Band, s. 412. Cf. Lecture i. p. 27, note * 

ἢ The true conception of the historical parts of Scripture, has been laid down by 
the Schoolmen with their customary acuteness. Thus Alexander Alensis—the “ Ir- 
refragable Doctor”’—discussing the question, ‘An Theologia sit scientia’? points out 
the essentia! distinction between sacred ard profane history :—“ Aliter est historia in 


LECT. 111. THE LOGOS THE REVEALER. 109 


—is of itself untenable. It is forgotten that the Jewish people 
themselves, their history, their ritual, their government, all pre- 
sent one grand prophecy of the future Redeemer ;' that in the 
New Testament, fully to the same extent asin the Old, doctrines 
are based upon history ; and that the Old Testament is as en- 
tirely occupied with the Messiah still future, as the New with 
the Christ who has already come. Thus the Apostles see the 
Christian element in the narrative of Hagar and Ishmael ;? of 
the miracle of the water which flowed from the rock at the word 
of Moses ;* of the vision of the Lord of Hosts by Isaiah.* Does 
not the New Testament explain the saying of the prophet— 
“ Behold I, and the children which God hath given me,”* to have 
been fulfilled in Christ as perfectly as the words of any Messianic 
Psalm; and in the same degree as what is specially honored, 


sacra Scriptura; aliterin alis. In aliis enim historia significatione sermonum expri- 
mit singularia gesta hominum; nec est intentio significationis interiorts, * * * In 
sacra vero Scriptura ponitur historia non ea ratione seu fine, ut significentur singulares 
actus hominum significatione sermonum; sed ut significentur universales actus: et 
conditiones pertinentes ad informationem hominum, et contemplationis divinorum mys: 
teriorum significatione rerum. * * * JIntroducitur ergo in historia sacree Scrip- 
turee factum singulare ad significandum universale: et inde est, quod ejus est intel- 
lectus et scientia. * * * Τὴ litterali historia Abrahze, et Job, singulare est, quod 
narratur: sed ad hoc in Scriptura narratur, ut exemplar sit vitee et conversationis bo- 
no;um: unde Rom. xv. ‘Queecunque scripta sunt, ad nostram doctrinem scripta 
sunt. Et Jacob. ult. ‘Exemplum accipite patientiz et longanimitatis prophetas.’ ”— 
Summe Theolog. Pars. 1ma, qu. i. Albertus Magnus, ‘Summ Theol. Tract. i.,” 
argues precisely in the same manner. 

«Tota divina οἰκονομία priorum temporum hune ipsum Christum ejusque res 
gestas, ut pulcherrimam ac perfectissimam speciem, perpetuo velut ante oculos habens, 
ceetera omnia ad illud instar effinxit.”—Grotius ad Matt. i. 22; Opp. Theol. t. ii. p. 11 
(quoted by Rudelbach, 1842, H. ii. 5. 39). Take as a single illustration, the parallel 
between Israel and Christ: ‘Thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Is- 
rael is My son, even My first born: and I say unto thee, Let My son go,” &¢c.—Exod. 
iv. 22. The Prophet applies the words: ‘“‘ When Israel was a child, then I loved 
him, and called My son out of Eeypt.”—Hosea, xi. 1. The Evangelist, in fine, fills 
up the outlines of the history: Joseph ‘‘took the young child and His mother, and 
departed into Egypt * * * that it might be fulfilled (iva πληρωθῇ) which was 
spoken of the Lord by the Prophet, saying, Out ο΄ Egypt have I called My Son.”—-S. 
Matt. 11. 14, 15. 

* Gal. iv. 24-26. The argument of S. Paul in this passage affords a striking illus- 
tration of that characteristic of Revelation, according to which it is fully developed 
by means of a succession of repeated acts on God’s part. The Law, so far from dis- 
annulling the promise to Abraham, and the covenant of circumcision made with him, 
was, in its day, the fulfilment of that promise, and the ratification of that covenant. 
In its turn the Law, in like manner, received its further completion in the Christian 
scheme :—the son of “ the freewoman” has now become the son of ‘‘the bondmaid,”’ 
through the coming of the “Jerusalem whichis above.” ‘Agar is Mount Sinai in 
Arabia, and is in the same rank with (as the margin of our version renders the original 
"π-συστοιχεῖ δέ) Jerusalem which now is, and isin bondage with her children; but 
Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.” Cf. Luger, ‘‘ Die Rede 
des Stephanus, ἃ 28. 

41 Cor. x. 4. 48. John, xii. 41. 5 Heh. ii. 13; Isai. viii. 18. 


110 THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW:  [LECT. III. 


as the Christian element of the Old Testament ? Nay, ὃ. Paul 
teaches Timothy,’ that by “ the holy Scriptures”—that is, of the 
Old Testament taken in its entire extent—‘“‘is the man of God” 
“made wise unto Salvation through faith which is in Christ :” in 
other words, because Christ is their object. 

The manner in which 8. Paul relies upon the Old Testament 
is peculiarly striking. Men are almost invariably tempted, after 
a change of opinion, to make little of the system which they have 
left ; nay, even to reject what truth may be in it, rather than 
transfer any of their former views to their new line of thought. 
Had 5. Paul acted as men are wont to do, he must, unquestion- 
ably, have rather avoided attaching importance to, or upholding 
the authority of the Old Testament ;—especially as his chief task 
was, that of opposing the introduction of Jewish practices into 
Christianity. We know, for example, how Marcion and his fol- 
lowers, from their hostility to Jewish opinions, rejected the Old 
Testament altogether.” Now, 8. Paul adopts a course the very 
reverse of this.’ He recognises the Old Testament as an essential 
component of the Faith, profitable for all times ; and as contain- 
ing in its doctrines, in its types, in its history, the germs of all 
the leading truths of Christianity. Forexample : Moses and the 
Prophets had laid down in express terms, that the true end and 
design of the Law was the circumcision of the heart.* Need one 
point out how forcibly S. Paul insists that “that 15 not circum- 
cision, which is outward in the flesh ;” and that the true circum- 
cision is that of the heart ?° The very sense, indeed, in which 
he teaches that the Law is annulled, assumes not only a continual 
connexion of it with the New Testament, but also the union of 


1 2 Tim. iii. 15. 

2 “ Gerdo preceded him in this, as in his tenets generally; having at an earlier pe- 
riod asserted this contrariety between the two Testaments. * * * It would appear 
that Marcion went beyond his master in this matter, since he not only maintained a 
contrariety between the two Testaments, but even assumed a contrariety between 
the Apostles inthe New * * * Relying upon this contrariety, he charged a 
Jewish bias upon the writings of all the Apostles, with the exception of Paul, who 
has declared the abolition of Judaism without indulgence.” Hug, Hnleitung, ler Th. 
Kap. 1, ὃ 8. (Fosdick’s transl. p. 44.) 

3 It is interesting to observe that the Apostle designates the gross immorality of 
Heathenism, when contrasting it with Judaism, by the term ἀν μΐ α.---Ὦ Cor. vi 
14; Rom. vi. 19. 

4 “Cireumcise, therefore, the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.” 
—Deut. x. 16. Of. xxx.6. Again: “Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and take 
away the foreskin of your hearts, ye men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusa- 
lem.”—Jer. iv. 4. 

δ΄ Rom. ii. 28, 29. Of. Col. ii. 11; Phil. iii. 3. 


LECT. Π1.]} THE LOGOS THE REVEALER. 111 


both in one Divine plan. Look to the fourth chapter of the 
Epistle to the Romans, and the entire treatment of the subject 
of Faith. The Apostle shows that the object of the Divine 
Author of the Pentateuch was neither temporary, nor restrictea 
to the immediate subject of its history. It was not written for 
Abraham’s sake only that his faith was imputed to him for 
righteousness, but for us also... When addressing the Gentile 
church at Corinth—a church for which the Jewish law, as such, 
could possess neither interest nor importance,—the Apostle en- 
forces the practical lesson which he was inculcating, by assuming 
the Divine nature and standing authority of that Law, as op- 
posed to anything human: “Say I these things as a man? or 
saith not the Law the same also Ὁ In proof of this position, he 
goes on to quote—as being “‘ written in the Law of Moses”—the 
apparently trivial command, ‘‘ Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth 
of the ox, that treadeth out the corn ;” observing, in explanation, 
ἐς for our sakes no doubt this is written :” and in the tenth chap- 
ter of the same Epistle he adds, that the history of Israel is our 
“example.”* Again, in the second chapter of the Acts of the 
Apostles, 8. Peter, and, in the thirteenth chapter, ὃ. Paul, de- 
monstrate to the Jews, from the pages of the Old Testament, 
that the ‘‘ same Jesus whom they had crucified was both Lord 
and Christ :”* the former Apostle further teaching that the Spirit 
of Christ which was in the Prophets “ testified beforehand the 
sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow ;”° and the 

1 Rom. iv. 23, 24. Cf supra, p. 108, n. 5. 

2 1 Cor. ix. 8; and the Apostle proceeds: “For it is written in the Law of 
Moses (ἐν yap τῷ Moioéwe νόμῷ γέγραπται), Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of 
the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith He it 
altogether for our sakes? For our sakes no doubt this is written.”—ver 9, 10; 8S. 
Paul clearly intimating by the question, ‘‘ Doth God take care for oxen?” that the 
Holy Spirit had from the first intended that the expression should apply to human 
laborers. It is worth noticing, too, in how unconnected a manner, if we take them 
in their bare literal sense, the original words occur in Deut. xxv. 4. This same quo- 
tation is made for a kindred purpose in 1 Tim. v. 18; where in the next verse the 
Apostle goes on to apply the ordinance of the Law (Deut. xvii. 6; xix. 15): “At 
the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses shall the matter be 
established ;—an ordinance to which he had already referred,—2 Cor. xiii. 1; and to 
which our Lord Himself had on two occasions appealed,—S. Matt. xviii. 16; 5, 
John, viii. 17. 

* “With many of them [viz., “our fathers”] God was not well pleased: for they 
‘were overthrown in the wilderness. Now these things were our examples (τύποι)." 
—1 Cor. x. 5, 6. 

‘ “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made 


that same Jesus, whom ve have crucified, both Lord and Christ.”—Acts, ii. 36. 
51 Peter 1.11 


112 HE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW:  [LECT. ΠῚ. 


latter reminding the church of Corinth how, from the first, he 
had taught them that Christ had died, was buried, and rose 
again ‘the third day, according to the Scriptures.” And this 
same doctrine, expressing as it does the complete harmony of the 
two great divisions of the Bible, 8. Paul again proclaims, if pos- 
sible, more clearly, before King Agrippa: “1 continue unto this 
day, witnessing both to small and great ; saying none other 
things than those which the Prophets and Moses did -say should 
come.’” 

In short, the words and the Spirit of Christ alike guided the 
Apostles to combine their teaching and their acts, their faith and 
their hopes, with the substance and language of the Old Testa- 
ment. Hence it is that, in presence of the Christian Church, they 
insist not only upon the preparatory relation of the former Scrip- 
tures to Christ, but also upon their permanent authority as a 
Divine source of 16. Their type of Truth is declared to preform 
in itself the image of the future destinies of the world to the final 
consummation :—‘‘ The heaven,” said §. Peter, “‘must receive 
Jesus Christ until the times of restitution of all things which 
God hath spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since 
the world began.’”* The centuries, therefore, which are still fu- 
ture, and the hidden germs of whose development the Old Tes- 
tament bears within it, will successively unfold its exposition and 
fulfilment, just as the Old Testament itself, during the centuries 
which are now past, had beforehand indicated and prepared for 
the arrival of the Lord. In a word, we find Christ Himself ad- 
dressing His disciples in the language of the Theocracy, even 
when He refers to the consummation of the Christian scheme. 
Then, he tells them, they also “‘shall sit upon twelve thrones, 
judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”’ He employs the phrase- 
ology of the Old Testament when He speaks of His own return 
and its signs*’ He applies the predictions of Joel and of 
Daniel, and adds nothing to what those prophets had announced 


1 Cor: Ἐν. 5,24. 5. Acts, xxvi, 22. Cf xxviii. 23. 

5 To the μόρφωσις τῆς γνώσεως καὶ τῆς ἀληθείας in the Old Testament (Rom. ii, 
20) corresponds in Christianity the πλήρωσις. While the νόμος τῶν ἐντολῶν, so far aa 
it was contained ἐν δόγμασιν was abolished by Christ (Eph. ii. 15; cf Col. ii, 14) 
the substance of the Law, its δικαίωμα----αθ the ἐντολαΐ prove it to be—remains and 
receives its full accomplishment. See Rom. iii. 31; viii. 4. Of Beck, “ Propad. 
Entwickl.,” 5, 247. 

4 Acts, iii. 21. ° S. Matt. xix. 28. 

5 S. Mats. xxiv.; 5. Mark, xiii.; S. Luke, xxi. 


LECT. III.] THE LOGOS THE REVEALER. 113 


beyond what was disclosed by His personal humiliation.’ The 
Apostles, too, when they describe the features of their Master’s 
life, simply present them as the accomplishment of what had 
‘been written aforetime :” so that the whole record of Prophecy 
revives, as it were, in their testimony, standing there in its full 
brilliancy, as Moses and Elias near Christ upon the Mount of 
Transfiguration.” Even §. John, in after times, when he beheld 
the felicity of the Saints in Glory, and was permitted to hear 
the voice of praise and thanksgiving with which the courts of 
heaven resound, records how both Old and New Testament fur- 
nish, even there, the language of adoration. He tells us how 
those ‘‘ who have gotten the victory, and who have the harps of 
God,” still sing “ the song of Moses the servant of God, and the 
song of the Lamb.’” In fine, in the historical, the didactic, the 
prophetical portions of the New Testament alike, we discern the 
Old Testament, “ the old Law, living again,” as it has been finely 
remarked, “‘in a new and spiritual life ; not embalmed and laid 
with reverential care aside in the grave, but arisen from the dead 
and alive for evermore, like its own Divine Founder.” 

The passages of Scripture, which have been reviewed in the 
remarks just made, not only enable us to refute those systems 
which reject or disparage one portion of the inspired writings, but 
also supply an argument bearing with great force upon our more 
immediate subject. The summary, which has been given, pre- 


1 See Hofmann, “ Weissagung und Erfiillung,” 5. 59. 

? “Inde apparent Moyses et Elias, hoc est, Lex et Prophetia cum Verbo; neque 
enim Lex potest esse sine Verbo: neque propheta, nisi qui de Dei Filio prophetarit. 
Et illi quidem filii tonitrui corporali gloria Moysen quoque et Eliam speculati sunt: 
sed etiam nos quotidie videmus Moysen cum Dei Filio; videmus enim Legem in 
Evangelio cum legimus: ‘Diliges Dominum Deum tuum.’ Videmus Eliam cum Dei 
Verbo, cum legimus: ‘Ecce Virgo, in utero accipiet.’”—S. Ambros., Hxposit. Evang. 
sec. Luc. lib, VII. t. 1. p. 1413. 

3. Rey. xv. 3. Compare this verse with the allusion in Isai. xii. 1, 2, to Exod. xv. 
1, ἄς. Olshausen, having observed that Heb. iv. shows how the Jews must have un- 
derstood the spiritual import of the departure from’ Egypt, and the entrance under 
Joshua into the promised land, proceeds to say :—“In accordance with this concep- 
tion, the miraculous passage through the Red Sea, was the miraculous aid whereby 
the Lord perfects the deliverance from the power of the evil one; and the song of 
Moses which was based upon that event becomes the triumphal song of the Elect. 
* * * If the Law has led on the way to the land of rest, as far as Jordan, so the 
heavenly Joshua has guided with strong hand, through its waves, into the fatherland. 
Not otherwise are all of mankind, who have been ordained to life, guided, like Israel, 
through the wilderness, after they have been drawn out of darkness, in order to enter 
once for all into the eternal land of peace, and to sing the song of Moses and of the 
Lamb, when the land of darkness lies behind.”—Zin Wort., &e., s. 52, τι. s. 95. 

* Williams on the Apocalypse, Preface, p. vi. For some further remarks on the 
use of the Old Testament in the New, see infra, Lecture vii. 


5 


᾿ 


114 THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW: |[LECT. II, 


sents in a tangible shape, one of the strongest proofs of the con- 
tinuous exercise of the Divine influence, throughout every page 
of the Bible. It exhibits, as a matter of fact, the unity of de- 
sign which pervades writings of such various forms, and such di- 
versified contents : writings, too, which were not the product of 
a single age, or of one particular stage of human civilization, but 
whose authors are scattered over more than twenty centuries. 
So intimate, indeed, is the connexion which subsists between the 
Old and New Testament, in language, in thought, and in the 
mutual relation of means and end, that we can regard their sev- 
eral books no otherwise than as the different members of one or- 
ganized whole ; each member fulfilling its own proper function, 
and, by its perfect adaptation to the great purpose, which all the 
parts alike subserve, pointing to One Divine Author. 
This same conclusion presents itself no less forcibly if we turn 
our view to the supernatural means employed under both dispen- 
sations. The analogy, which has subsisted from the first between 
the different phases of the Divine operations, is as striking as it 
is perfect. ‘The divers manners” in which God had of old time 
spoken by the prophets, are repeated, in strictly identical forms, 
in the case of those servants of God, of whose acts the New Tes- 
tament gives the history. In both narratives the Divine sugges- 
tions are represented as having been conveyed by the same chan- 
nels :—Angelic appearances, Dreams, Visions, Ecstacy, Voices 
from heaven,’ Symbolic acts. The angel Gabriel informs Daniel 
when “ Messiah the Prince” should come; the same celestial 
messenger announces to the blessed Virgin the Incarnation of 
Christ.2, The dreams by which warnings were conveyed, and com- 
mands issued to Joseph, as related in the opening chapters of 
S. Matthew’s Gospel, in no respect differ from the dreams of 


1 ἘΝ, g. we read that, atS. Paul’s conversion, “there shined round about him a light 
from heaven: and he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, 
why persecutest thou Me ?”—Acts, ix. 3, 4; just as we read that when the Prophet 
of God had heard the “still small voice,” “he wrapped his face in his mantle, and 
went out, and stood in the entering in of the cave. And behold there came @ voice 
unto him and said, What doest thou here, Elijah ?”—1 Kings, xix. 12, 13. Asa 
further example of these analogies between the Old and New Testaments, we may 
add the election of Matthias by lot (Acts, i), as being parallel to the singling out of 
Achan (Josh. vii.); of Jonathan (1 Sam, xiv. 41); of Jonah (ch. i. 7): the principle 
of such acts being stated in the words: ‘The lot is cast into the lap, but the whole 
disposing thereof is of the Lord.”—Proy. xvi. 33. 

2 Dan. ix. 21-25; S. Luke, i. 26. 


LECT. 11. THE LOGOS THE REVEALER. 115 


the Patriarchs. The visions recorded by 8. Luke in the Acts of 
the Apostles, are but a repetition of those seen by men of God 
in other days.” The trance of ὃ. Peter, mentioned in the tenth 
chapter of the Acts, and that of 8. Paul, of which he speaks in 
the twelfth chapter of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, re- 
semble in every particular the states of prophetic rapture. We 
read, moreover, that revelations were constantly conveyed to men, 
under the Old Testament, by means of symbolical actions ;—the 
writings of Jeremiah or Ezekiel will supply abundant illustra- 
tions.’ This fact presents itself no less prominently in the New 
Testament. Agabus* makes use of a symbolical act, when pre- 
dicting 8. Paul’s approaching captivity: and Christ Himself 
adopted symbolical language when alluding to the manner of 
8. Peter’s death ;*—this latter instance being, in strict conformity 
with similar prophetic intimations, both brief and obscure. 


' Neander, alluding to this portion of the evangelical history, makes the strange 
remark: “ We need be the less afraid of a free, unliteral interpretation, when we find 
a difference in the subjective conception of these events by even the Evangelists thems 
selves, Matthew speaking only of dreams and visions, and Luke of objective phenom- 
ena, viz. the appearance of angels.’—The Life of Jesus Christ, § 14. (Bohn’s Transl, 
p. 21.) Mr. Westcott, in reply to this attempt to exhibit the statements of the Gos- 
pels as a result of the ‘“ subjective” influence of each writer’s mind, observes :—“ But 
surely those are right who see in this difference an adaptation to the peculiar state 
of the recipient,”—(Hlements of the Gospel Harmony, p. 17),—meaning, I presume, 
that an announcement by a dream was the form of Revelation best suited to the ap- 
prehension of Joseph; while the appearance of an angel was adapted to the moro 
spiritual mind of Mary. This may be so,—if we merely regard the manner of the 
Divine communication. But the natural remark, that each Kvangelist wrote as he 
has written, simply because he was narrating facts, affords the direct answer: and Mr. 
Westcott completely overturns the notion that S. Matthew, in consequence of his 
“subjective” views, refrains from allusion to angelic appearances—by referring to this 
Evangelist’s description of the angel of the Lord, who appeared at the Sepulchre 
(S. Matt. xxviii. 2-7); while the visions recorded in the Acts of the Apostles prove 
that no “‘subjective” prejudice in favor of ‘‘ objective phenomena” induced 8. Luke to 
write only of angels. See Acts, xvi. 9; xviii. 9,10. Cf ch. xxvii. 23. 

2 See last note. Compare for example, the statement: “Then spake the Lord to 
Paul in the night by a vision,” ἄρ. (Acts, xviii. 9) ;—-with the language of the Old 
Testament: ‘‘It came to pass that night that the word of the Lord came unto Na- 
than * * * and according to all this vision so did Nathan speak unto David.”— 
2 Sam. vii. 4, 17. 

5. KE. g. “Thus saith the Lord unto me, Make thee bonds and yokes, and put them 
upon thy neck.”—Jer. xxvii. 2. Again: ‘Thou also, son of man, take thee a tile, 
and lay it before thee, and pourtray upon it the city, even Jerusalem.”—Hzek. iv. 1. 

+ “ And when he was come unto us, he took Paul’s girdle, and bound his own 
hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem 
bind the man,” &c.—Acts, xxi. 11. 

®° “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, when thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, 
and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old thou shalt stretch 
forth thy hands and another shall gird thee,” &c.—S. John, xxi. 18, Cf Olshausen in 
loc., who quotes: “Tunc Petrus ab altero cingitur, quum cruci adstringitur.”—Ter- 
tullian. Scorpiace, § 15, p. 633. “It is worthy of notice that Jesus is represented as 
veiling the great mystery of His death under symbolic language, both in 8. John and 


116 THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW:  [LECT. IIL 


In the structure, too, of both divisions of the Bible, we notice 
the same resemblance. The history of events occupies a consid- 
erable portion of each, Without such details, their other portions 
would be unintelligible ; and accordingly, both Testaments com- 
bine the history and the doctrines of religion. Asa single instance 
of didactic teaching in the New Testament, we may adduce the 
Epistle of 8. James ; who, after the manner of the ancient Proph- 
ets, raises his voice against the rich, and whose words, in their He- 
brew form, bear all the stamp of Old Testament Prophecy.’ Again, 
the hymns of Mary and Zacharias, in the opening of S. Luke’s 
Gospel, present a perfect sample of the Hebrew type of the 
Psalms.” Many other analogies, similar to those just pointed out, 
will meet us in the course of this inquiry : it must suffice, for the 
present, to allude to one other of much interest ;—I mean the 
echo of the last tones of Old Testament prophecy in the Revela- 


in the Synoptists. Cf. John, iii. 14; Matt. xii. 40; John, ii. 22; Luke, xiii. 82. For 
a still earlier revelation of the same truth, cf. John, i. 29; Luke, ii. 35.”—-Westcott, 
Elem. of Gosp. Harm., p. 60. 

1“ The Christian Jeremiah.”—Wordsworth, On the Canon, p. 257. 

2 “'The hymns of Mary and Zacharias perfectly represent the Old Hebrew type of 
the Psalms, and may be restored word for word, into pure Hebrew.”—Thiersch Ver- 
such zur Herstell. fiir die Krit. der N. T. Schriften, s. 48. The hymn of the Blessed 
Virgin (S. Luke, i. 46, &c.) may be regarded as tne closing Psalm of the Old Testa- 
ment—“ Dieser Lobgesang ist ja eigentlich der Schlusspsalm des alten Testamentes.” 
—Ebrard, Kritik der Evang. Gesch., s. 221. It may not be amiss to observe, that the 
nature of these hymns affords a powerful argument against the mythic theory of 
Strauss. The hope of the coming Messiah is here depicted, colored with all the hues 
of Hebrew nationality. The strain of sentiment is purely Israelitic throughout: e. g. 
the raising up ‘‘the horn of salvation” in the house of David; the fulfilment of the 
promise to Abraham, &c.—S. Luke, i. 68-79: while the blessing of salvation through 
the remission of sins—“ which the song of Simeon expands further to a light to 
lighten the Gentiles, as well as the peculiar glory of God’s ancient people, is spoken 
of as one yet to be revealed.” These hymns, in short, “differ in no other respect 
from the ordinary tenor of the Psalms, and other ancient predictions of the same mer- 
cies, than in the announcement of their ‘me as now at length close at hand; and the 
designation of the instrwments of their approaching but yet unreached fulfilment, as now 
actually present. Could this have been the case, if they were written in the times of 
Christianity? * * * They who sawin the [Incarnate Godhead, vanquishing death 
by death * * * ἃ reign more glorious and more secure than any earthly image 
whatever could adequately reach,—could they have failed to exhibit some explicit 
statement of this, bursting through the more sensible imagery with which it is encom- 
passed, as we see continually in the visions of the Apocalypse [e. g. ch. v. 5-14] * * * 
Such a vision of coming power, and light, and majesty, as these hymns indicate, 
* * * could belong only to the particular position assigned to it in the boundary 
of the old and new covenants. ‘The projection of a vision like this from the point of 
view under the New Testament, is what cannot in sound reason or just criticism be 
maintained: with the possession of such explicit knowledge as even Christ’s earthly 
life supplied,—but still more His death, and the events that followed,—such reserve, 
anited to such imagined anticipation, were to an earrest mind, unnatural, to a de- 
ceitful mind, impossible.”—W. H. Mill, The Christian Advocate’s Publication for 1841, 
p. 44-51. 


LECT. 11.] THE LOGOS THE REVEALER, 117 


tion of 5. John. It does not arise from accidental coincidence, or 
mere subjective peculiarities, that 8. John follows so nearly the 
slosing prophets of the Old Testament,—Ezekiel, Daniel, Zecha- 
riah ;* it rather springs from the serial character of Scripture in 
general, and of the prophets in particular. As the Bible is no 
fortuitous assemblage of writings, but one organic whole, 8. John 
had the double end in view of connecting what he wrote with the 
preceding books of the New Testament, and with the last predic- 
tions of the Old, whose authors he, in a certain sense, immediately 
follows, as the writer of the only prophetical book of the New 
Testament.’ One feature of this analogy may be mentioned. 
The Apocalypse opens with the words : ‘‘ The revelation of Jesus 
Christ, which God gave Him, and He signified it by His angel to 
His servant John ;” and again, in its closing chapter,* Christ re- 
veals the knowledge of the future by the mediation of His angel. 
Here then we find that, together with the Divine Revealer— 
the Eternal Word—an angel is placed in a subordinate relation to 
Him, as His ministering attendant. So also, in those prophetical 
books with which the Apocalypse has the closest affinity, a par- 
ticular angel is brought into notice, who in like manner stands 
beside the Eternal Son as the mediating agent of His revela- 
tions.* Thus Daniel writes :—‘‘ And I heard a man’s voice be- 
tween the banks of Ulai, which called and said, Gabriel, make 
this man to understand the vision.’’*® 


1To take a few out of many examples: ‘“ Behold He cometh with clouds; and 
every eye shall see Him, and they also which pierced Him, and all kindreds of the 
earth shall wail because of Him.”—Rev.i. 7. This passage, while it is a reflexion of 
Christ’s words, 8. Matt. xxiv. 30, literally repeats the language of the prophets :—of 
Daniel, who speaks of the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven (ch. vii. 13); 
and of Zechariah, who writes: ‘They shall look upon Me whom they have pierced, 
and they shall mourn for Him.”—xii. 10. Again, S. John, in his Gospel, had merely 
pointed to his own name by implication, but here he states it: at ver. 9, we read “I 
John ;”—a phrase which follows the style of Daniel, who alone of the prophets says 
“T Daniel” (vii. 28: viii. 1; ix. 2; x. 2): “We find the same difference in the Old 
Testament also, between the historical and the prophetical writings of the prophets. 
The jistory had its security in the joint knowledge of contemporaries; but in Prophecy 
personality is of the greatest moment, and the anonymous is excluded. Nameless 
prophecies have no place in Old Testament Scripture.”—Henstenberg, The Revelation 
of S. John, (Clarke’s For. Theol. Lib., i. p. 52.) The doubts which have been insinu- 
ated against this portion of the New Testament add great importance to this remark. 
Compare, also, Zech. iv. 2, with Rev. i. 12; and Hzek. ii. 9; iii, 1-3, with the lan- 
guage of Rev. x. 

* Hengstenberg on Rev. i. 9, ibid. p. 85. 

* “The angel which showed me these things.”—Reyv. xxii. 8. 

* Cf Hengstenberg, ibid. p. 50. 

δ Day. viii. 16. Again: “The man Gabriel whom I had seen in the vision at the 
beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me * * * and said, O Daniel, J 


118 THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW:  [LECT. Mm. 


This latter remark leads directly to the chief bond of union 
between the two parts of the inspired record. It has been shown 
in the first of these Discourses, that one of the two conditions 
which must be satisfied by any solution of the problem now under 
consideration, is imposed by the essential distinction which sub- 
sists between Revelation and Inspiration." According to that 
distinction, while Scripture is, throughout all its parts, inspired, 
it cannot be said that all its contents are revelations. This prin- 
ciple, which is suggested by the mere inspection of the contents 
of the sacred volume, is connected with a fact already adverted 
to, and of which some proof must now be given ; namely, that 
while Inspiration (as the signification of the term denotes) is 
the peculiar function of the Holy Ghost,—so, in like manner, to 
reveal is the office appropriated to the Eternal Word.’ In the 
New Testament this fact is obvious. In its pages we see the 
Divine Logos,—the Eternal Word Himself Incarnate—no longer 
by His mediating angel, but in His own Person leading to their 
completion, the disclosures of the ‘Divine will which had been 
given through “all His holy prophets since the world be- 
gan.” In the Gospel history, we see the Son of God combining 
in His own Person the two great phases of all immediate Reve- 
lation ; unfolding, that is, the mystery of the Divine counsels by 
His words ; displaying the wonders of Divine power by His acts.’ 
In days of old the Creator of the physical world—for God has 
“created all things by Jesus Christ,’*—He is here manifested as 
the restorer of the moral world, as the author of “ἃ New Crea- 
tion.”* The scheme of Revelation was not, indeed, completed 
by Himself whiie on earth. “1 have yet many things to say 
unto you,” was His statement to His disciples on the eve of His 


am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding.”—ix. 21,22. So also Zech- 
ariah writes: ‘“‘ And the Lord answered the angel that talked with me with good 
words. * * * §o the angel that communed with me said unto me. Cry thou say- 
ing, Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, I am jealous,” &c.—Zech. i. 13, 14. 

? Lecture i. p. 40. 

3 “Non enim aliter nos discere poteramus qu sunt Dei, nisi Magister noster, 
Verbum existens, homo factus fuisset. Neque enim alius poterat enarrare nobis que 
sunt Patris, nisi proprium ipsius Verbum. Quis enim alius cognovit sensum Domini ? 
aut quis alius ejus consiliarius factus est?”—S. Irenzeus, Cont. Heer., lib. v. i. 1, p. 292. 

3 See Lecture i. p. 24. * Eph. iii. 9. 

δῶστε εἴ τις ἐν Χριστῷ, καινὴ κτίσι ς.--- Cor. v.17. ‘For in Christ Jesus 
neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation (κα ἐν ἢ 
x tiotsc).—Gal. vi. 15. Cf the remarkable words—‘ And He that sat upon the 
throne said—Behold, I make all things new (καινὰ ποιῶ mayTa).”—Rev. xxi. 5. 

6 §. John, xvi. 12. 


LECT. III. ] THE LOGOS THE REVEALER. 119 


departure from them ; and although He may have disclosed many 
of such things during the “‘ forty days” of His appearance “ after 
His Passion,” when He spake to them “ of the things pertaining 
to the kingdom of God,” yet we know that, even after Pente- 
cost, new revelations were needed by them, and that new revela- 
tions were given, 

But whence did these proceed, and by what channels were 
they conveyed ? He Himself has told us how this was to be, 
“When He, the Spirit of truth is come, He will guide you 
into all truth : for He shall not speak of Himself ; but whatsoever 
He shall hear, that shall He speak ; and He will show you things 
to come. He shall glorify Me ; for He shall receive of Mine, and 
shall show it unto you.” These words place it beyond question, 
that the entire scheme of the new dispensation (not only that por- 
tion of it unfolded by Himself while on earth, but also what 
was revealed to the Apostles after His Ascension), proceeded 
directly from the Eternal Son ; while the Divine Being under 
whose influence the Apostles were enabled to apprehend such 
mysteries, and who shielded them from all error,—who taught 
them “all things,” and who brought “all things to their remem- 
brance,”—who gave them, in fine, ““ἃ mouth and wisdom which 
all their adversaries could neither gainsay nor resist’”*—was the 
Spirit of Truth, the Holy Ghost, the source of Inspiration. This 
very principle, indeed, that from the revelations of the Eternal 
Son alone, can man attain to any knowledge of God, His nature, 
or His counsels, is expressly defined in the passage which I have 
chosen as the text of this Discourse: ‘‘ No man knoweth who 
the Son is, but the Father ; and who the Father is, but the Son, 
and he to whom the Son wills to reveal Him,”* Thus it is, that 
8. Paul, when referring to the source of his knowledge of Chris- 
tian truth, writes so explicitly—“ I neither received it of man, 

1 Acts, i. 3. 78. John, xvi. 13, 14. 

*S. John, xiv. 26. 8. Luke, xxi. 15. 

* © ἂν βούληται ὁ Ὑἱὸς ἀποκαλύψαι. Baumgarten Crusius attempts to maintain, 
without adducing a particle of proof, that in the preceding verse, and in the parallel 
passage, S. Matt. xi. 25, the word ἀπεκάλυψας, in the sentence, “ Thou hast hid these 
things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes (νηπίοις)," 
merely signifies, ‘‘ hast made it possible for them to understand ;’—thus losing the 
entire force of the idea ‘‘to reveal.” Ina note, however, this writer qualifies his as- 
sertion, and considers that the sense which he assigns to dmexaAvwac may lie in tne 
word νηπίοις (“ad intelligentiam eorum”), and ὠποκαλύπτειν still retain its proper 


signification: “Cause it to be known through Me,” i. 6. Christ.—Grundziige der Bibl 
Theologie, 8. 223. 


120 GHE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW:  [LECT. IIL 


neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ ;” 
while he further informs us of the channel of conveyance,—‘ God 
hath revealed them unto us by His Spirit.”* In fine, the first 
words of the Apocalypse announce that the Book is ‘ the revela- 
tion of Jesus Christ :” and 8. Peter teaches, generally, respecting 
the Prophets of the Old Testament, that it was “the Spirit of 
Christ, which was in them.”° 

But do the statements of the Old Testament itself correspond 
to these intimations of the New? While proceeding to seek for 
the evidence which is there supplied, let us reflect for a moment 
on the idea of the Divine Word, as Creator of all things. The 
original act of Creation is the foundation of all exhibitions of 
supernatural power, whether by word or by act :—whether they 
be, in short, Revelations, properly so called, or Miracles.“ Could 
we conceive this world of ours to have existed from eternity, the 
subject of fixed determinate laws, then, indeed, the introduction 
among the phenomena which surround us, of any power which 
does not follow the course of nature, must positively disturb and 
disorganize the adjustments of the universe. But seeing that all 


1 Δί’ ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰησοῦ Xprorot.—Gal. i. 12. 

3 «Ἡμῖν δὲ ἀπεκάλυψεν ὁ Θεὸς διὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος .---Ἱ Cor. ii. 10. 

8. “Of which salvation the prophets have inquired * * * who prophesied of 
the grace that should come unto you: searching what or what manner of time the 
Spirit of Christ which was in them (τὸ ἐν αὐτοῖς Πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ) did signify, when 
it testified beforehand,” &c.—1 Pet. i. 10,11. These intimations of Scripture have 
been accurately interpreted by the Fathers. See the passages quoted, Lecture ii. p. 
83. To which may be added the express language of two disciples of the Apostles, 
—S. Clement of Rome, and S. Ignatius. S. Clement, referring to Psalm xxxiy. 11- 
17, writes as follows: ταῦτα δὲ πάντα βεβαιοῖ ἡ ἐν Χριστῷ πίστις" καὶ γὰρ Αὐτὸς 
διὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος τοῦ ᾿Αγίου οὕτως προσκαλεῖται ἡμᾶς" Δεῦτε, τέκνα, x. τ. A—Ad 
Corinth. xxii. And S. Ignatius observes: πῶς ἡμεῖς δυνησόμεθα ζῆσαι χωρὶς Αὐτοῦ 
[scil. Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ], οὐ καὶ οἱ προφῆται μαθηταὶ ὄντες τῷ Πνεύματι ὡς διδάσκαλον 
Αὐτὸν mpocedoxovv.— Ad Magnes. ix. 

4 In the case of the physical world, as Twesten justly observes, there have been 
certain epochs in which plants, and animals, and man, have for the first time ap- 
peared; and it is capabie of demonstration that, up to a certain point of time, none 
of these existences had as yet made their appearance. If we cannot avoid acknowl- 
edging here, that certain forces were exercised at such epochs, why not acknowledge 
the same in the realm of history? Jean Paul writes: ‘“ Wenigstens zwei Wunder 
oder Offenbarungen bleiben euch unbestritten, nimlich die Geburt der Endlichkeit, 
und die Geburt des Lebens, mitten ins diirre Holz der Materie hinein.”—Levana, Th. 
1, 5. 126. Religion, continues Twesten, “ represents itself to our inward experience 
as a power to make happy, as a principle of new operations,—nay, of a transforma- 
tion of the whole thought and will; as a new power of life, elevated above that to 
which we formerly belonged, as high as human life is raised above the animal, or the 
physical power of life above the merely mechanical and chemical processes of inani- 
wate nature. Therefore we can regard the prigin of Christianity [qu. Revelation] in 
no other light than the origin of vegetable or animal life,—of the instincts of brutes, 
or the consciousness of man; in short, as a New Creation.” — Vorlesungen, ler Band, 
& 352, ff. 


LECT. 111. | THE LOGOS THE REVEALER. 121 


around us has been called into being at the fiat of Omnipotence, 
each manifestation. of supernatural agency, is but a re-appearance 
of the original Creative Power’ penetrating the veil of nature, de- 
termining anew, and giving a new direction to the course of this 
world’s history. The immediate intervention of God in such 
cases, is not to be referred merely to His general activity in Na- 
ture, but must rather be regarded as a concentration, as it were, 
of that activity in certain definite acts, or in certain definite 
organs which represent the spirit and power of the universal 
Revelation. This concentration, again, can come to pass only 
through the creative and revealing Presence of that Divine Being, 
who, having ordained the laws of Nature, and provided for their 
permanence by His unceasing energy, nevertheless at times fur- 
ther unveils His character and His will in new and special reve- 
lations.” The Old Testament, in remarkable language, intimates 
that the special miracles of Revelation have ever proceeded from 
such renewed activity of the Creative*® Power ; while it describes 
those miracles as being themselves new centres, as it were, of 
Creation, from which new epochs date, and which manifest, once 
more, as on the first day, the glory of Jehovah.“ The sacred 


? “When mankind,” writes Bishop Butler, “was first placed in this state, there 
was a power exerted, totally different from the present course of nature. Now 
whether this power stopped immediately after it had made man, or went on and ex- 
erted itself farther in giving him a revelation, is a question,” &c., &¢c.—Analogy, 
part ii. ch. 2. 

? “Miracles and Prophecy are, properly speaking, nothing more than particularly 
energetic displays of the ‘demonstration of the Spirit and of power’ (ἀποδείξεως πνεύ- 
ματος καὶ δυνάμεως 1 Cor. ii. 4); and accordingly only different modes of operation of 
one and the same Cause. What the Miracle is in the department of action, Prophecy 
is in the department of knowledge (miraculum potenti, scientice)”—Beck, Propdd. En- 
twicklung,s.178. Hence the scriptural titles of such exhibitions of the Divine energy, 
δυνώμεις, τέρατα, σημεῖα. Cf. Acts, ii. 22; 2 Cor. xii. 12. ‘‘ Advayee expresses rather 
the objective idea of miracle; τέρας, the subjective; σημεῖον the visible sign of the 
spiritual fact of God’s kingdom.”—Nitzsch, Syst. der Christl. Lehre, § 34. (Mont- 
gomery’s transl., p. 84.) Sack truly observes: ‘“ Die Offenbarung ist nicht Natur im 
empirisch-kosmischen Sinne, sie tritt zwar in die Natur hinein, aber sie ist wesentlich 
uber der Natur, oder iibernatiirlich, da sie die Selbstdarstellung des Schépfers und 
Herrn der Natur ist.”—Apologetik, s. 121. And he quotes the apposite remark of 
Dr. Julius Miiller: “Ut miraculum non possit non obscurum esse a parte legis natu- 
ralis, tamen apertum est a parte superioris ordinis.”—J/bid. s. 138. 

* Mr. Rogers, in his Essay, “ Reason and Faith,” observes that the time “is com- 
ing when even those who shall object to the evidence which sustains the Chr§tian 
miracles will acknowledge that, philosophy requires them to admit that men have ne 
ground whatever to dogmatise on the antecedent impossibility of miracles in general 
* * * not only because the geologist will have familiarized the world with the 
idea of successive interventions, and, in fact, distinct creative acts, having all the nature 
of miracles,” &e.—p. 43. 

“For example: ‘ Because all those men which have seen My glory, and My mir 
acles which I did in Egypt and in the wilderness,’ &.—Numb. xiv. 22. Again 


122 THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW: [LECT. ΠῚ, 


writers represent God as concentrating His “ great and unsearch- 
able” doings,’ in single, visible acts of Creation, whereby elements 
absolutely new are introduced into the usual series of events. For 
example, Moses thus announces the Divine punishment inflicted 
for the rebellion of Korah : “ But if the Lord make a new thing 
(the margin of our version renders the original literally, “‘ create 
a creature,”)* and the earth open her mouth, and they go down 
quick (or still living) into the pit, then ye shall understand that 
these men have provoked the Lord.” In the same manner Jere- 
miah announces the grand miracle of the Incarnation: ‘ The 
Lord hath created a new thing’ in the earth.” And—to quote a 
passage which expands the idea implied by the texts just ad- 
duced—the Lord of Hosts is described by Isaiah as upbraiding 
the house of Jacob for its ‘‘ obstinacy :” “1 have even from the 
beginning declared it to thee, before it came to pass I showed it 
thee. * * * JT have showed thee new things from this time, 
even hidden things, and thou didst not know them. They are 
created now, and not from the beginning * * * lest thov 
shouldest say, Behold I knew them,”* 

But the Old Testament does not confine itself to this repre- 
sentation of the fact, that the revelations which it contains are 
but new instances of Creative Power, thereby leading us back to 


“This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth His 
glory.”—S. John, ii. 11. Cf. ix. 3-5; xi. 40. 

1“ Which doeth great things, and unsearchable; marvellous things without num- 
ber.”—Job, v. 9. For this conception of the question I am largely indebted to the 
profound remarks of Beck, loc cit. s. 186 ff. 

2? Ν᾽ mNM2.—Numb. xvi. 30. To take another example from the Pentateuch :— 
“Behold I make a covenant: before all thy eople will I do marvels, such as have 
not been done [i. e. created, \N722-N> ἼΩΝ] in all the earth.”—Exod. xxxiv. 10. Ge 
senius thus explains the term rendered “ marvels,” mind53: “ Mirabiliter facta, mira- 
cula Dei, tum in mundo creando et sustentando (Ps. ix. 2; xxvi. 7; xl. 6), tum in 
populo suo juvando patrata (Ex. xxxiv. 10; Jos. iii. 5).” 

3 Aw 7 NI2.—Jer. xxxi. 22. 

* Tsai. xlviii. 5-7. ‘New things,” miwim; ‘‘they are created,” 1x72. 

Cf. also the following texts: ‘‘ Behold the former things are come to pass, and 
new things (ΤΟ ΤΠ) do I declare,” Isai. xlii. 9); ‘“ Remember ye not the former things, 
neither consider the things of old. Behold I will do anew thing * * * I will 
even make a way in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert” (xliii. 18, 19). Cf 
Isai. iv. 6; xli. 20; xlv. 8. That the ideas expressed by the terms N72 and Dun 
are considered by the sacred writers strictly cognate, will appear from the following 
passages: “So is this great ana wide sea wherein are things creeping innumerable, 
both small and great beasts. * * * Thou sendest forth Thy Spirit, they are cre- 
aed (Τ᾽): and thou renewest (wImm’) the face of the earth.”—I’s. civ. 30. “ Create 
(X72) in me a clean heart, O God; and renew (vm) a right spirit within me.”—Ps. 
i. 10. “Behold I create new heavens (Ὁ ΤΙ —~20 N13], and a new earth.” —Isai 
txv. 17; cf. Ixvi. 22. 


LECT. 111.] THE LOGOS THE REVEALER. 123 


the Author of all creation—the Eternal Son ;’ it presents Him 
directly to our view, as unfolding in Person the Divine counsels, 
under the mysterious character of the ANGEL oF JEHOovAH, To 
this title,—employed for the first time to describe His appearance 
in the age of Abraham, laying the foundation, as it were, of all 
future revelations to the chosen race,—some attention must be 
devoted. 

The passages of the Old Testament which refer to this aspect 
of Revelation may be reduced to three heads.’ In the first 
place, the Angel of Jehovah, by the use of the first person sin- 
gular, identifies Himself with the Divine Nature. Thus, “ The 
Angel of the Lord* said unto Hagar, I will multiply thy seed 
exceedingly ;” and in a subsequent verse we read, that ‘“ She 
called the name of JEHovaH that spake unto her, Thou God 
seest me.” Secondly, reference is made to the Angel, so as to 
prevent our understanding any other than a Being essentially 
Divine. For example, Jacob says, “God, before whom my 
fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all 
my life long unto this day, the ANGEL which redeemed me from 


' Bishop Bull writes: ‘‘ Esto igitur, inquies, fuerit Deus, qui in veteri Testamento, 
sive per Angelum, sive sub Angelica repreesentatione sanctis viris apparuit, et locutus 
est; at qua demum ratione adducti crediderunt Doctores, fuisse Dei Filium ? Respon- 
deo: Ratione, ni fallor, optima, quam ex traditione Apostolica edidicerant. Scilicet 
Deus Pater, quemadmodum per Filium Suum mundum primitus condidit creavitque ; 
ita per eundem Filium Se deinceps mundo patefecit.”—Defensio Fid. Nicene, sect. 1. 
ch. i. § 12, p. 11. ed. 1721. 

? This classification ofthe passages in question, I borrow from Sack, ‘ Apologetik,” 
8. 170 ff 

8 mam qNd.—Gen. xvi. 9-11. Again we read: “And the Angel of the Lord 
(> 4D) called unto him out of heaven and said, Abraham, Abraham; and he said, 
Here am I. And He said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad * * * for nowI 
know that thou fearest God (o°75x), seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only 
son from ΜῈ (727272 ND>wn N>).—Gen. xxii. 11,12. So also Exod. iii. 2: “The Angel 
of the Lord (5 x57) appeared unto” Moses “in a flame of fire out of the midst of a 
bush;” * * * ‘And when the Lord {ΠῚ saw that he turned aside to see, God 
(o°775x) called unto him out of the midst of the bush” (ver. 4) * * * ‘Moreover 
He said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the 
God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God (a77>xN7" 
3x). And the Lord (ΠΤ) said” &. (ver. 6,7). Bishop Bull observes: ‘Cum Patres 
communiter asserunt, Angelum, qui Abrahamo et Mosi apparuit, cuique nomen Jeho- 
vee, et divini honores tribuuntur, fuisse Dei Filium, duplicem id sensum admittit: 
nempe, vel fuisse Deum, i. 6. Filium Dei, nomine Angeli significatum, quia Ipse cor- 
pus assumserit, sive speciem visibilem, qualem Angeli usurpare solent; vel Filium 
Dei fuisse in Angelo, hoc est, Angelum fuisse, qui corpus assumsit, et Filium Dei 
fuisse in Angelo, per assistentiam nempe et presentiam singularem.”—Def. Fid. Nic.. 
Sect. I. ch. i. § 11, p. 10. Bishop Bull considers the latter of these senses to be that 
which the Ancients approved. ΒΕ). g. he quotes the words of 5. Athanasius on Exod. 
iii. 2-6 (Cont Arian. Orat. 111. § 14, t. i. p. 563): ‘‘ What was seen was an Angel; but 
God spoke in him;” and he refers, in confirmation of this view, to Exod. xxiii, 20, 
“My Name is in Him,’—words which will be considered under the third head. 


124 THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW:  [LECT. 1Π 


all evil, bless the lads ;'—where the identification of the Angel 
with Him from whom alone all blessing flows, and who redeems 
from evil, cannot be doubted. Thirdly, a certain distinction is 
made between the Angel of Jehovah and Jehovah Himself ; but 
in such a manner as to represent that the essence of Deity had 
become manifest and operative in the former. Thus Jehovah 
says: “ Behold I send an ANGEL before thee to keep thee in the 
way. * * * Beware of Him, and obey His voice ; provoke 
Him not ; for He will not pardon your transgressions : for My 
Name is in Him ;”*—where, even without dwelling upon the sig- 
nification of the phrase ‘the Name of Jehovah,” we can only 
understand such words as describing a distinct, Divine Person- 
ality.* 

An expression in the Epistle to the Hebrews, casts further 
light on the class of texts which have been just τος The 
sacred writer observes : “‘ Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of 


1 Gen. xviii. 15,16. 5. Athanasius writes: ‘ None of created and natural angels 
did he join to God their Creator, nor rejecting God that fed him did he from angel ask 
the blessing on his grandsons; but in saying ‘ Who delivered me from all evil’ 
[ΡΞ Sxrm ND] he showed that it was no created angel, but the WoRD oF 
Gop, whom he joined to the Father in his prayer, through Whom, whomsoever He 
will, God doth deliver. For knowing that He is also called the Father’s ‘Angel of 
great counsel’ [Isai. ix. 6, μεγάλης βουλῆς “A yy eA oc, LXX.], he said that none other 
than He was the Giver of blessing, and Deliverer from evil. Nor was it that he de- 
sired a blessing for himself from God, but for his grandchildren from the Angel, but 
Whom he himself had besought saying, ‘I will not let Thee go except Thou bless 
me,’ (for that was God, as he says himself, ‘I have seen God face to -ace,’ [Gen. xxxii. 
26, 30] )—Him he prayed to bless also the sons of Joseph.”—Cont. Arian. Orat. ili. 
§ 12. τ᾿ i. p. 561. (Oxf Transl. p. 418.) 

? Exod. xxiii, 20, 21. Hence Sack concludes “ that ¥% se is to be translated 
not “an Angel of J ehovah,” but “the Angel of Jehovah,’—or the appearing, the 
revelation of Jehovah; the idea being ‘Jehovah in His visibility.’ "—Apologetik, 8. 
171. Cf. the promise vouchsafed on the withdrawal (see infra, p. 127, note 7) of the 
Uncreated Angel (“‘ My Presence (725) shall go with thee, and I will give thee rest”— 
Ex. xxxiii. 14), with the statement: “In all their afflictions he was afflicted, and the 
Angel of His Presence (725 7572) saved them.”—TIsai. ]xiii. 9. On the phrase here 
employed Olshausen observes: “In Exod. xxxiii. 20, 23, 0°25 is used for the myste- 
rious, invisible God; while His becoming revealed, and therefore the Son [das Offen- 
barwerdende (also der Sohn, )] is called ‘ His back’ rns. In Isaiah, lxiii. 9, hows 
ever, the Revealer of God Himself i is called n°35 ND. ”__ Comm. iiber Johann, ΠῚ ΤᾺ 
Β, ii. 5. 84. 

3. The manner in which Jewish writers have understood the texts just quoted will 
be seen from the following extracts:—Philo writes: “Ewe μὲν γὰρ οὐ τελείωται, ἣγε- 
μόνι τῆς ὁδοῦ χρῆται λόγῳ θείῳ" χρησμὸς yap ἐστιν, ᾿Ιδοὺ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν 
μου πρὸ προσώπου cov κ. τ. A. [Επχοᾶ. xxiii, 20].—De Migr. Abr. t. i. p. 468. In the 
remarkable personification of the Divine Wisdom to be found in the Apocrypha, we 
find this same truth developed. We are told that wisdom guided them in a marvel- 
ous way, and was unto them for a cover by day and a light of stars in the night sea- 
son; brought them through the Red Sea * * * drowned their enemies,” &c.— 
Wisdom, x. 17-19. Compare the words of 5. Paul,—‘ Neither let us tempt Christ as 
wome of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.”—1 Cor. x. 9. 


LECT. I11.] THE LUGOS THE REVEALER. 125 


the heavenly calling, consider the AposTLE and High Priest of 
our profession, Christ Jesus.”* The true force of these words 
will at once appear, if we compare the etymology of the expres- 
sion ‘‘ Apostle,” with that of the title applied in the Old Testa- 
ment, as we have seen, to the Person of the Eternal Word, in 
His character of Revealer. Christ is here called ‘ Apostle,” or 
“* Messenger,” with plain reference to His office, under the former 
dispensation, as ‘Angel of Jehovah.” The term ‘ Angel,” in- 
deed, could not have been employed without confusing the mean- 
ing ; for, in the two preceding chapters, it had been used to de- 
note the species of Angels as distinguished from the human 
race ; and hence, it could not fitly describe, in the passage be- 
fore us, the peculiar office of Christ as “ the Angel.” ‘The inspired 
writer, accordingly, selects for this purpose the term “‘ Apostle ;” 
which equally denotes the same idea, and which is borrowed from 
a verb continually employed by 8. John, in a strictly technical 
sense, to signify the ‘ mission’ of the Eternal Son into the world, 
—this Evangelist repeatedly describing Christ as “‘ the Apostle,” 
or as He “whom God hath sent.” ὃ. Paul, therefore, in the 


? Heb. iii. 1. It is to be observed that in the previous portion of this Epistle (ch. 
1.4; ii. 9), a contrast is drawn between Christ and angels (ἄγγελοι in the plural). 
At first sight it might appear that this contrast would have been heightened, had 
the opposition, been drawn between the Son of God and “ The Angel of Jehovah” 
("> 4x57), so often referred to in the Old Testament. The remarks already made 
explain why this has not been done:—*‘the Angel of Jehovah” was no definite an- 
gelic being. The γι 4x572 was not a person in subordination to God,—was no individual 
of the number of created angels, of whose instrumentality God might have availed 
Himself,—but He was Himself God, as he appeared in the form of an Angel. See 
Ebrard, “ Der Brief an die Hebraer,” s. 33. 

2 Ὃν γὰρ ἀπέστειλεν ὁ Oed¢.—S. John, iii. 34. ὁ Πατήρ με ἀπέσταλκεν. 
—v. 36. Cf vi. 29; x. 36; and in fine: ‘‘As my Father hath sent (ἀπέσταλκεν) 
Me, even so send (πέμπω) I you”—xx. 21, where the difference of the two verbs, 
clearly denotes the technical application of the former. This same technical signifi- 
cation of the verb, by which S. John denotes the ‘ mission’ of the Son into the world, 
we find elsewhere in the language of S. Paul: ‘‘ When the fulness of time was come, 
God sent forth (ἐξαπέστειλεν) His Son.”—Gal. iv. 4. See Ebrard, ibid. s. 126. 

C. A. Keil (“Opuscula Academica” Lipsiz, 1821.) gives some important refer- 
ences, which illustrate that view of the text in the Epistle to the Hebrews which I 
have taken from Ebrard, and also the general notion of the Logos as the Revealer. 
E. g. Θεὸς οὖν ὧν ὁ Λόγος. καὶ ἐκ Θεοῦ πεφυκὼς, ὁπότ᾽ dv βούληται ὁ Πατὴρ τῶν ὅλων, 
πέμπει αὐτὸν εἴς τινα τύπον, ὃς παραγινόμενος καὶ ἀκούεται καὶ dpatat.—Theophilus, 
Ad Autolyc. ii. § 22. p. 365. ‘‘ Atque hac ipsa de causa [observes Keil] Θεοῦ etiam 
ἄγγελος οὐ ἀπώστολος iis [scil, Patribus] dicitur, quod diserte docent Justini 
Mart. et Originis loca, quorum ille quidem ita habet: καὶ ἄγγελος δὲ καλεῖται, καὶ 
ἀπόστολος. αὐτὸς γὰρ ἀπαγγέλλει ὅσα δεῖ γνωσθῆναι, καὶ ἀπόστελλεται μηνύσων 
ὅσα ἀγγέλλεται.---- Αγοϊ, i. § 63, p. 81; hic autem sic: δύναται δὲ καὶ ὁ Λόγος Ὑἱὸς 
εἶναι παρὰ τῷ ἀπαγγέλλειν τὰ κρύφια τοῦ ἸΤατρὺς ἐκείνου * * * καὶ καθὸ Λόγος 
ἐστὶ μεγάλης τυγχώνει βουλῆς “Ayyedoc ὦν. κ. τ. A—Tom. i. in Joan. t.iv. p, 45 [cf 
the use of this quotation from the LXX. of Isaiah, ix. 6, by S. Athanasius, supra, p. 


ΕΣ 
126 THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE ΝΕ: [LECT. HL 


Epistle to the Hebrews alludes to the Angel of Jehovah, who, 
ander the Law, had revealed God to the people ; referring at the 
same time to the High Priest who was the representative of the 
people before God.’ With these features of the Theocratic dis- 
pensation he compares the Christian scheme. ‘ Consider,” he 
writes, “ the Apostle and High Priest of our (1. 6. the Christian) 
profession ;” and he then goes on to develop at some length the 
comparison thus instituted. 

These statements of Scripture having been premised, let us 
look to the circumstances under which the immediate interven- 
tion of the Uncreated Angel was withdrawn.’ As in after times 
the Jewish people “ denied the Holy One and the Just,” so in the 
days of Moses they rebelled against their Divine Guide : they 
despised the stern warning of Jehovah, and worshipped the calf 
in Horeb. On that occasion the solemn promise, that the Un- 
created Angel should continue to precede the armies of Israel, 
was as solemnly revoked, and a created angel assigned as their 
leader. “I will send an angel before thee,” said the Lord, 
“ὦ % © for I will not go up in the midst of thee, for thou 
art a stiff-necked people: lest I consume thee in the way.” 


124, note"). ‘Hine vero jam illud etiam repetendum est, quod hune Λόγον Vet. 
quidem Test. temporibus non modo sub variis formis hominibus docuerunt adparuisse, 
sed prophetis etiam, que tradi ab iis vellet, suppeditasse. Nov. autem Test. tem- 
poribus in Mariam eum dicebat se demisisse, hominemque factum esse.”—p. 503. 
To which I may add the words of Clemens Alex.: τὸ μὲν οὖν πρότερον τῷ πρεσβυτέρῳ 
λαῷ, πρεσβυτέρα διαθήκη ἦν, καὶ νόμος ἐπαιδαγώγει τὸν λαὸν μετὰ φόβου, Kai Λόγος 
ἄγγελος ἣν" καινῷ δὲ καὶ νέῳ λαῷ, καινὴ καὶ νέα διαθήκη δεδώρηται, καὶ ὁ Λόγος γεγέν- 
ηται * * * Kad ὁ μυστικὸς ἐκεῖνος “Ayyedog ᾿Ιησοῦς tiktetat.—Pedagogus. lib. i. 
Chinpyise: 

1 Ebrard writes as follows: “ Betrachten wir nun das Attribut τὸν ἀπόστολον Kal 
ἀρχιερέα τῆς ὁμολογίας ἡμῶν niiher. ᾿Απόστολος heisst Jesus nach seiner Analogie 
mit dem "4x5, als Bote Gottes an die Menschen, ἀρχιερεύς nach seiner Analogie 
mit dem 51717 ἼΓ19 als Vertreter der Menschen vor Gott.”—JTbid. 5. 125. 

? The view which I take of this question is, I am aware, attended with some diffi- 
culty. So profound a theologian as Bishop Bull has observed: ‘‘ Ad ἐπιφανείας sub 
Veteri Testamento quod attinet, hactenus cum Augustino consentimus, non semper 
in Angelo presentia singulari adfuisse Deum; sed multa per solos angelos adminis- 
trasse: quin et modum excessisse in hae questione Veteres nonnullos, haud negamus. 
Preeterea quando merus angelus, quando autem Deus in Angelo apparuerit, szepe dif: 
ficilem esse conjecturam, ultro fatemur.”—Def. Fid. Nic. Sect. iv. cap. iii. § 15, p. 245. 
The difficulty has been also noticed by S. Athanasius: “Nor on seeing an angel 
would a man say he had seen the Father; for angels, as it is written, are ‘ minister- 
ing spirits sent forth to minister’ | Heb. i. 14], and are heralds of gifts given by Him 
through the Word to those who receive them. * * * And he who beholds a vis- 
ion of angels knows that he has seen the angel, and not God. For Zacharias saw an 
angel: and Hsaias saw the Lord. Manoe, the father of Samson, saw an angel; but 
Moses beheld God. Gideon saw an angel, but to Abraham appeared God.”— Cont. 
Arion. Orat. iii. § 14. t. i. p. 563 (Oxf. Transl. p. 420.) 

Exod. xxxili. 2, 3. 


LECT. II. ] THE LOGOS THE REVEALER. 127 


Here, then, as in the age of the Incarnation, the Personal Pres- 
ence of the Eternal Son is withdrawn ; and here, too, although 
in a veiled and mysterious manner, that Presence was supplied. 
God promises the people that they should not be forsaken : 
“My Presence shall go with thee, and I will give thee rest.”! 
Henceforward, as in the Gospel times,’ God’s dispensation was 
no longer administered by the Personal Presence of the Eternal 
Son ; but in both cases certain glimpses of His appearance were, 
from time to time, vouchsafed. Not to dwell upon other in- 
stances, Daniel* saw “one like the Son of Man, who came to the 
Ancient of Days ;” just as δ. Stephen* beheld “the Son of Man, 
standing on the right hand of God.” So, too, the object of 
Zechariah’s vision seems to have been identical with the Divine 


1 Ibid. ver. 14. Dr. Mill writes as follows:—‘ That the Angel of the Lord who 
preceded the children of Israel from Egypt in the cloud and in the fire was (agreeably 
to Exod. xiii. 20, 21; coll. xiv. 19, 20; Numb. xx. 6, &¢c.), the Lord Himself, pos- 
sessor of the incommunicable name 7; and that this Angel of the Covenant, as he 
is termed in Mal. iii. 1 coll. Gen. xlviii. 15, 16, &c., is the Uncreated Word, who ap- 
peared in visible form to Jacob and Moses, and who was in the fulness of time incar- 
nate in the Person of Jesus Christ, is the known undoubted faith of the Church of 
God, and needs not to be enlarged on here. This same Uncreated Angel, in whom 
was the Name of the Lord, is promised by the mouth of Moses in Exod. xxiii. 20-23, 
to continue to precede the armies of Israel, and cut off the Canaanites before them: 
but with an awful caution annexed, that they should be careful not to provoke that 
august Presence, intolerant of any contact with sin. But after the transgression of the 
calf in Horeb, it is as solemnly propounded in Exod. xxxiii. 2, 3, that another angel, 
expressly distinguished from the Divinity, and therefore a created being, should exe- 
cute that part of the former’s province which consisted in preceding their host and 
exterminating their enemies; the Divine Presence which would otherwise consume 
them being withdrawn. And though the worst part of this sentence was removed, 
as we find in the subsequent part of the chapter, by the intercession of Moses,—and 
the cloudy pillar that indicated the Divine Shekinah or inhabitation was restored to 
the tabernacle, and continued there,—there is no proof that the function assigned in 
ver. 2 to the created angel should be superseded ; while in the later Prophets, and in 
the testimony of the New Testament respecting the elder Sinaitic dispensation as 
subjected to created angels (Acts, vii. 53; Gal. iii. 19; Heb.i.; ii. 2-5), we have a 
strong argument for its continuance.”—The Christian Advocate’s Publication for 1841, 
Note A, p. 92. 

Dr. Mill then proceeds to consider the passage, where one who describes himself 
as Captain or Prince of the host of the Lord (m17°-N22-70), appears to Joshua.—Josh. 
y. 13-15. ‘In expressing the belief that this leader of the heavenly host, who con- 
ducted the people of Israel into Canaan, and vanquished their enemies before them, 
was a created angel, i. e. the Michael of Daniel, to whom the same functions with 
respect to Israel are ascribed,—and not, as many have supposed, the Divine Word or 
Angel of the Presence, who appeared in various manners to Jacob in Peniel, to Moses 
in the flaming bush, and elsewhere, I follow the general consent of ancient interpret- 
ers, and what appears to me the obvious sense of the Scripture.”—J6id. p. 54. For 
Dr. Mill’s remarks on this question see Appendix 1. 

2“ When the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, 
* * * Ho shall testify of me.”—S. John, xv. 26. “It is expedient for you that 
I go away.”—-xvi, 7. ; 

"Danis νὴ 19. * Acts, vii 56. 


128 THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW:  [LECT. ΠῚ. 


Being whom ὃ. John describes: ‘‘And I saw heaven opened, 
and behold a white horse ; and He that sat upon him was called 
Faithful and True: * * * and He was clothed with a vest- 
ure dipped in blood, and His name is called THe WorpD oF 
Gop.” At all events, we know that, subsequently to the age 
of Moses, the ¢mmediate communications of Jehovah, as a gen- 
eral rule, ceased ; and that certain means were made use of for 
conveying His revelations : ‘‘ There arose not”—such is the defi- 
nite information given in the last words of the Pentateuch— 
“There arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom 
Jehovah knew face to face.” For the Prophets who followed, 
God appointed certain channels, through which His revelations 
were to flow. “If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord 
will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto 
him in a dream,” 

But although the Personal Presence of the Logos was thus 
withdrawn, the language in which the sacred writers who followed 
Moses speak of the Divine influence under which they acted, 
while it distinctly points to an intermediate agency, intimates, at 
the same time, the indissoluble connexion with, and relation to 
the Eternal Word, of the means by which His Presence was 
supplied, and His revelations were communicated, Let us briefly 
consider how the agency now introduced is spoken of. It is 
described, generically, as ‘the Spirit of God.” Thus “ the Spirit 
of God” comes equally upon Balaam and Saul, as upon the pro- 
phets Azariah and Ezekiel. The exercise of the Divine influ- 


? Rev. xix. 11-13. Cf. ‘I saw by night, and behold a man riding upon a red 
horse, and he stood among the myrtle trees that were in the bottom; and behind 
him were there red horses speckled and white,” &c.—Zech. i. 8. 

? Numb. xii. 6, Besides those passages in which mention is made of the Personal 
appearance of the Divine Being, the Old Testament refers to a twofold manifestation 
of God in the world: (1.) He dwells in the midst of Israel:—‘‘ Let them inake me a’ 
sanctuary that I may dweli (*nI>v1) among them’”—Ex. xxv. 8; cf. Deut. xxxiii. 12, 
16. (2.) The Lord continually «peaks with Patriarchs and Prophets. “For both 
exhibitions of the divine agency, the Jewish Mystics have formed peculiar expres- 
sions—the Shekinah and the Merara (ΝΠ and ΠΣ 3). * * * The term Sheki- 
nah is found as well in the pxrely Pharisaical books (e. g. the Talmud) as in the Mys- 
tical. The Memra, on the other hand, belongs merely to the Targums.” * * * 
“Tn fact, the Memra is a Hebrew coloring of the Alexandrine Logos.”—Gfrorer, Das 
Jahrhundert des Heils, i. s. 300 ff. The term ἐπισκηνώσῃ in the New Testament 
(“that the power of Christ might rest upon me,” 2 Cor. xii. 9), has been thought to 
contain an allusion to the Shekinah. 

* In such cases we find the “Spirit of Jehovah,” and the “ Spirit of Elohim” used 
sndifferently, Thus, “The Spirit ef God (a75x mn) came upon” Balaam—Numb. 
xxiv. 2; Samuel tells Saul that “the Spirit of the Lord (τι m4) will come upon” 
him.—1 Sam. x. 6; ani at ver. i9 ~~ read that ‘the Spirit of God (o°75x mM) came 


LECT. 1π.} THE LOGOS THE REVEALER. 129 


ence, however, is more frequently represented by certain meta- 
phorical expressions. Of Ezekiel, for example, we read: “The 
Spirit of the Lord jel? upon me, and said unto me,”’—words 
which are immediately preceded by the statement : “ The Spirit 
lifted me up, and brought me unto the east gate of the Lord’s 
house ;” which passages, taken together, denote that by the 
power of the Spirit he was raised to the state of prophetic ec- 
stacy, analogous to that described in the New Testament, where 
it is said of S. Peter, that “‘a trance or ecstacy fell upon” him.’ 
Again, it is said of Zechariah the son of Jehoiada, of Amasai, 
and of Gideon, that they were “clothed” (as the margin of our 
version correctly renders the Hebrew term) with the Spirit ;* a 
phrase identical with that employed by our Lord Himself: 
“Tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with 
power from on high.” 

The Divine influence is also frequently denoted by the expres- 
sion, “‘ the hand of the Lord.” Thus we read that “the hand 
of the Lord was on Elijah.”* Ezekiel writes : “‘ The hand of the 
Lord God fell there upon me”’—meaning that he there became 
conscious of the mental excitement produced by the Spirit. And 
to the same effect, Jeremiah says: “TI sat alone, because of Thy 
hand ;” or, in the language of Isaiah, “The Lord spake thus to 
me with a strong hand.” This latter phrase is repeated by 
Ezekiel,—“ The hand of the Lord was strong upon me,” and de- 
notes ; “1 was impelled by Divine Spirit : or, as the Chaldee 
paraphrase renders, “‘I was under the influence of prophecy.” 


upon him.” Again, “The Spirit of God (a°7>x m4) came upon Azariah the son of 
Oded,”—2 Chron. xv. 1; while Ezekiel writes: ‘The Spirit of the Lord (777 mm) 
fell upon me.’”—xi. 5. In Isaiah we meet with a slight variation of the phrase, “ The 
Spirit of the Lord God (7177 724x m1) is upon me.”—lxi. 1. Hence the New Testa- 
ment phrase to denote the state in which revelations were received, ἐν πνεύματι = 
mona. Εν g. our Lord says: “ How then doth David in spirit (ἐν Πνεύματι) call Him 
Lord ?”—S. Matt. xxii. 43; and S. John,—“TI was in the Spirit (ἐν Πνεύματι) on the 
Lord’s day.”—Rev. i. 10; iv. 2; xvii. 3: cf ἐν éxordoe.—Acts, xi. 5. 

? Ezek. xi. 5. Ym py 5pm, At ver. 1, we read simply mm. 

? Acts, x. 10, Griesbach reads, ἐπέπεσεν ; Lachmann and Tischendorf, ἐγένετο. 
In either case, however, the parallel holds; for while we find 55s in the case before 
us, we read °F in several others, e. g. Numb. xxiv. 2; 2 Chron. xv. 1, &. &. In 
support of ἐπέπεσεν, cf. Gen. xv. 12 (LXX.) ἔκστασις ἐπέπεσε (MDD2) τῷ Λβραμ. 

* Of Zechariah (2 Chron. xxiv. 20), it is said) nw25 ODN mm. Of Amasai (1 
Chron. xii. 18), simply Mw3a> m7. Of Gideon (Judges, vi. 34), ΓΙῸ 35 Mi Mh. 

4S. Luke, xxiv. 49. ἐνδύσησθε. °1 Kings, xvii. 46. Ann Yo "7, 

ὁ Ezek. viii. 1. TMP ὍΝ TROD "SD dm. 

7 Jer. xv. 17; Isai. viii. 11; Ezek. iii. 14. Gesenius translates the original of 
Isai. viii. 11, by the words: “ Denn also sprach Jehovah zu mir in der Entziickung ;” 
on which he observes:—“ Of the spiritual influence (Begeisterung) which comes 


9 


130 THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW:  [LECT, Ml. 


That this is the true signification of the metaphor, ‘ the hand 
of the Lord,” will appear more distinctly from a statement of 
Ezekiel : “ The hand of the Lord was upon me, and carried me 
out in the Spirit of the Lord,’—a condition analogous to that 
described more concisely by 8. John in the Apocalypse, as being 
“in the Spirit.”” With reference to this subject the New Testa- 
ment, indeed, but repeats the language of the Old. For example: 
S. Luke writes of S. John the Baptist: ‘‘ The hand of the Lord 
was with him ;” and the same Evangelist records the expression 
of Christ: “If I by the finger of God”—that is, as ὃ. Matthew 
in the parallel passage explains the words, “If I by the Spirit 
of God”—“ cast out devils.’ This phrase, ‘the hand of the 


upon the Prophet, when the Deity appears to him, and urges him to speak, to act, 
and to work in Its name, the Hebrew says not merely: ‘the Spirit of God came 
upon him’ (Ezek. xi. 5), but still more frequently : 5» mmm Y* ~—‘the hand of Je- 
hovah came upon’ (Ezek. i.3; iii. 14, 22; xxxiii. 22; xxxvii. 1, and with 555 ‘ fell 
upon me,’ viii. 1), and once: ‘the hand of the Lord was strong upon me,’ qpin Dy 
1% Ezek. iii. 14 [Gesenius translates “ die Hand Jehova’s trieb mich an”, οὗ on 
pin Exod. xii 33. [The Egyptians were urgent”]. Hence mim directly implies 
the spiritual influences. which constitute a Prophet, and the revelations which he re 
ceived. Thus Jer. xv. 17: ‘Isat not in the assembly of the mockers, nor rejoiced; 
Usat alone because of Thy hand :’"— naw" 172 77" "3572 (“‘ wegen deiner Offenbarungen 
sass ich einsam”). To the latter passages, and especially Ezek. iii. 14 (a comparison 
which Jarchi has already with great aptness pointed out), the passage before us 
(Isai. viii. 11) is to be joined: 7 mpi, properly ‘in the impulse of the hand of 
God’ (im Antrieb der Hand Gottes), i. e. when I was urged by the Divine Spirit, 
when God revealed Himself'to me. Excellently the Chaldee: xnx133 4pm, in im- 
petu prophetie. * * * The Syriac, Luther, Lowth, &c. explained, from an unac- 
quaintance with this usage of language, ‘while,’ or ‘ as if He caught me by the hand’ 
(indem, od. als ob er mich bey der Hand fasste) ; cf. ™2 pum to catch by the hand.” — 
Der Prophet Jesaia, i. 8. 338. 

1 Ezek. xxxvii.1; Rey. i. 10. This conclusion is fully confirmed by the follow- 
ing striking passage: “‘ All this, said David, the Lord made me understand in writing 
by his hand upon me,” (5"207 “Sy Y’" Ta ΞῸΞΞ3 5511), 1 Chron. xxviii. 19; as well ag 
by the statement of the New Testament, that the men of God spake ὑπὸ Πνεύματος 
‘Ayiov φερόμενο ι.--ὰ 58. Pet. i. 21. 

2 §. Luke, i. 66 χεὶρ Kupiov==nim πὸ, This sense of Τὴ denoting power, influence, 
is quite in accordance with Hebrew usage. E. g. “Their inhabitants were of small 
power.” 2 Kings, xix. 26; where the marginal reading “short of hand” gives a 
literal rendering of the original, ™""xj,. We may also compare the use, by the New 
Testament writers, of δύναμις and δύναμις ὑψίστου, parallel with a reference to the 
Holy Ghost—S. Luke, i. 35; Acts, x. 38; 1 Thess. i. 5. 

38. Luke, xi. 20, εἰ δὲ ἐν δακτύλῳ Θεοῦ ἐκβάλλω. S. Matt. xii. 28, εἰ δὲ ἐν Πνεύ- 
ματι Θεοῦ ἐγὼ ἐκβάλλω. Of. Exod. viii. 19 [15], “ This is the finger of God,” N17 DazKN 
owbx:—LXX. Δάκτυλος Θεοῦ ἐστὶ τοῦτο. This parallelism has been noticed from a 
very early period. Thus Didymus of Alexandria (flor. a. Ὁ. 370, “ Magna, apud om- 
nes, admiratione habitus.’—Cave, Hist. Lit.) writes:—‘‘ Salvator ait: ‘Si autem ego 
in digito Dei ejicio deemonia, ergo supervenit in vos regnum Dei.’ Hune eundem 
locum alius Evangelista describens, loquentem intulit Filium: ‘Si autem ego in 
Spiritu Dei ejicie demonia.’ Ex quibus ostenditur, digitum Dei esse Spiritum 
Sanctum. Si ergo conjunctus est digitus manui, et manus ei cujus manus est: et 
digitus sine dubio ad ejus substantiam refertur cujus digitus est.’—De Spiritu Sancto, 
9. Xx, (ap. Galland. t. vi. p. 271.) 


LECT. I1I.] THE LOGOS THE REVEALER, 131 


Lord,” we meet in combination with another as frequently em- 
ployed, and no less important : “‘ The word of the Lord came ex- 
pressly unto Ezekiel, * * * and the hand of the Lord was 
there upon him,” It is needless to adduce examples of the re- 
currence of the expression—‘‘ The word of the Lord” came to 
such or such a prophet : Moses thus denotes revelations in the 
time of Abraham ; it is used by David,’ as well as by those who 
were officially prophets. In the Gospels, too, the phrase is ap- 
plied to 8. John the Baptist in the very language and tone of 
the Old Testament : ‘“‘ The word of God came unto John the son 
of Zacharias in the wilderness ;”*—the identity of expression in- 


? Ezek. i. 3. While considering such phrases, the following unique form of quo- 
tation cannot be passed over. Our Lord Himself says: “Therefore also said the 
Wisdom of God (dia τοῦτο καὶ 7 So dia τοῦ Θεοῦ εἶπεν), I will send them prophets,” 
&e.—S. Luke, xi. 49. The parallel passage in S. Matthew (xxiii. 34) simply gives— 
“Wherefore behold J send unto you prophets,” &c.—without any indication of the 
words being a quotation. One can hardly doubt, however, that our Lord expressly 
refers to 2 Chron. xxiv. 19: “Yet He sent prophets to them, to bring them again 
unto the Lord; and they testified against them: but they would not give ear;”— 
especially as this statement of the sacred writer is at once followed by the account of 
the putting Zechariah to death, to which event Christ has alluded, in immediate con- 
nexion with the words just adduced from S. Luke and 8, Matthew. The difficulty 
arising from the want of exact agreement of this quotation with any passage of the 
Old Testament is somewhat exaggerated by Olshausen; nevertheless, assuming that 
there is a reference, he acutely observes: “If this be so, then the Redeemer in Mat- 
thew speaks not merely as a Person bounded by the limits of a temporal life, but as 
the Son of God, as the essential Wisdom (Prov. viii.; Ecclus. xxiv.), which 5. Luke 
introduces as speaking, and by whose intervention from the beginning all prophets 
and holy men of God have entered on their office (Wisd. vii. 27). [In all ages en- 
tering into holy souls, she (Wisdom) maketh them friends of God, and prophets” ]. 
In this case there would be no essential difference between Matthew and Luke.” 
Olshausen adds, “if Jesus calls Himself, in John, the Truth, the Resurrection, and 
the Life, why shall He not also describe Himself as Wisdom ?”—Comment. B. i. s. 
850, That an absence of literal agreement is no proof that the Old Testament has 
not been directly referred to, will be shown in Lecture vii. infra. 

? “The word of the Lord came unto Abram.”—Gen. xy. 1. ‘And David said to 
Solomon * * * the word of the Lord came to me.”—1 Chron. xxii. 8. In both 
Cases we read ΓΦ: the LXX., however, have translated the original in the 
former of these passages by ῥῆμα Κυρίου, in the latter by λόγος Kvpiov.—employing 
dja and λόγος indifferently. See infra, p. 132, ἄς. With such phrases we may 
compare the words of Simeon (S. Luke, ii. 29): “according to Thy word”—xara τὸ 
ῥῆμά Lov {scil. πρὸς ἐμὲ ἐρχόμενον) ; in which expression he, of course, refers to the 
fact stated by the Evangelist: καὶ ἦν αὐτῷ κεχρηματισμένον ὑπὸ τοῦ Πνεύματος τοῦ 
‘Ayiov (ver. 26), on the form of which χρηματισμός S. Luke is silent. As to the term 
by which the Divine communication is here expressed, it is to be noted that “ yp7- 
ματίζειν, in profane Greek, denotes ‘to transact public business,’ ‘to communicate 
answers and decrees ;’—eofar, ‘to receive such decrees, &c.’ In Hellenistic Greek, 
the expression appears in the same sense, with a reference, however, to the province 
of Divine things: χρηματίζειν, ‘to give Divine commands’ (cf. Heb. xii. 25);—ec0az, 
‘to receive the same.’ [So Jer. xxvi. 2; xxix 23.] Cf. S. Matth. ii. 12,22. For 
the signification, ‘to take and bear a title or name,’ quite usual among profane 
writers, see Acts, xi. 26; Rom. vii. 3.’—Olshausen, Comment., i. 5, 69. 

*'S. Luke, iii. 2. On this passage Olshausen observes :—“ Peculiar to Luke, iii. 2, 
is the addition ἐγένετο ῥῆμα Θεοῦ ἐπὶ ᾿Ιωώννην, which corresponds to the phrase s¢ 


132 THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW:  [LECT. IIL 


dicating, doubtless, the continuity of the Baptist’s position with 
that of the servants of God, under the old dispensation whose 
ranks he closed: ‘“‘ For the Law and the Prophets were until 
John.” 

The New Testament usage of the expression, “‘ The word of 
God” (ῥῆμα Θεοῦ, in the singular, as employed by 8. Luke in the 
passage just quoted,) may help to discover its true force. It re- 
sults from an examination of the texts in which the phrase occurs, 
that it invariably implies the Divine spiritual influence. To 


usual among the prophets, 5» = 427 mn. This remark represents, in the first place, 
the public appearance of John as an act not proceeding from his own reflexion, but 
as conditioned by a higher impulse. Secondly, the mode of operation of the higher 
world upon the mind of John appears hence not to differ from that which took place 
in the prophets of the Old Testament.”—B.i.s. 157. Olshausen subsequently resumes 
the subject when commenting on §, John, i. 1:—“ The writers of the Old Testament 
are, no doubt, acquainted with the idea of the Divine Utterance (des gottlichen Sprech- 
ens), and in like manner with the plurality of Persons in God; but the Worp Itself 
nowhere appears as a Personality, but only as an Activity of God. Even in the re- 
markable passage, Ps. xxxiii. 6, where the Word is placed in conjunction with the 
Spirit, we can, no doubt, looking backwards from the stand-point of the New Testa- 
ment, recognise the Eternal Word; but the idea of Personality is not as yet distinctly 
expressed, even in this passage. * * * Nay, even in the New Testament, the 
Divine Utterance (ῥῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ) appears still to predominate merely as Divine Ac 
tivity,—whether it be a single operation which is to be described by the phrase, or 
the collective Activity of the Divine Nature (cf. Heb. iv. 12; xi. 3). Only in the lan- 
guage of John is the idea of the Personality of the Word distinctly expressed (ef 
1 John, i. 1; Rev. xix. 13). The other writers use for this exalted Personality a dif 
ferent name. It is called ὁ Ὑἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, as born from God’s Nature; ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ ἀν- 
θρώπου == DIN 72 (Dan. vii. 13) as the original type of Humanity [οἱ Gen. i. 26, 27]. 
Only in the profound language of the Book of Proverbs (viii. 22, ff; ef. with xxx. 4), 
does the idea of the Logos appear, which is there introduced under the name of Wis- 
dom, as if in the transition, from the more universal impersonal conception, to the 
personal. However, the name ‘ Word of God’ is wanting for the idea, in Prov. xxx. 
4; it appears, on the contrary, in the New Testament name ‘Son of God.’”—Comm. 
Β511..5-..99. 

* Viz., (1) S. Luke, iii. 2; (2) Rom. x. 11, “‘ Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing 
by the word of God.” (Lachmann reads ῥήματος Χριστοῦ.) (3) Eph. vi. 17 (see next 
note). (4) Heb. vi. 5, ‘‘ Were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted 
the good word of God.”’ (Καλόν should, perhaps, be rather taken as the predicate.) 
(5) Heb. xi. 3, ‘‘ Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the 
word of God.” (Cf. Heb. i. 3—76 ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως Αὐτοῦ.) The texts, 8. Luke iv. 
4, and 1 §. Pet. i. 25, are quotations. On Rom. x. 17, Olshausen observes :—“ Aja 
Οεοῦ is, no doubt, to be referred to the doctrine of the revelation which forms the 
foundation of preaching, but yet so that this doctrine is conceived as being wholly 
animated (beseelte und belebte) by the Spirit of God, so that it might even have been 
written: ἡ δὲ ἀκοὴ διὰ Πνεύματος Ocod.”—B. iii. 5, 388. 

To these texts may be added Eph. v. 20, “ That he might sanctify and cleanse it 
with the washing of water by the word, that He might,” &e. “There is some uncer- 
tainty as to the explanation of ἐν ῥήματι. Most interpretations are seen, at the first 
glance, to be false, as, e. g,, that of Koppe, according to which ἐν ῥήματι iva forms 
one phrase, which stands, as he believed, for the Hebrew (wx 725 59, words which 
the LXX. never translate in this manner. Against the connexion with ἁγεώσῃ there 
is the position of the words; otherwise the junction of the expressions would not be 
unsuitable, according to the analogy of the dy:ugew ἐν ἀληθείᾳ of John, xvii. 17 and 
19. The words can only be united with λουτρὸν τοῦ ὕδατος. In this connexion 


LECT, πι.} THE LOGOS THE REVEALER. 133 


take a single instance, S. Paul writes: “‘ The sword of the Spirit, 
which [Spirit] is the word of God.”’ In fact, when the term 
ῥῆμα is employed in the New Testament in the singular number, 
and as distinct from that which usually implies the same idea 
(λόγος), it points to some Divine agency which always accom- 
panies, or proceeds from, the Eternal Word ;—an operation 
which He produces, but not the Divine Logos Himself. It 
is only in the language of 8. John that the idea of the Per- 
sonality of the Worp is expressed ; and it is deserving of re- 
mark that this term (ῥῆμα) which denotes the Divine utterance 
does not occur in the singular in his Gospel.” In the Old 
Testament, with the exceptions already noted, Christ appears 
to act rather through the medium of this operative power, 
than after the manner of a Person ; and thus, in the passage, 
“Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed 
by the word of God,” not the Personal Word (Λόγος), but this 
Divine operative energy (ja Θεοῦ) is represented as the im- 
mediate source of all created things. In conformity with this 


writers usually recur either to the ordinance of Christ in the institution of Baptism, 
whereby ‘the washing of water’ (das Wasserbad) receives its purifying power; or to 
the word of reconciliation and forgiveness of sins. But in neither allusion do we see 
how the article before ῥήματι could be omitted ; for in either case the Apostle would 
have had a definite word in view. Here ἐν ῥήματι rather stands as equivalent in 
signification to ἐν πνεύματι (Eph. ii. 22): and this with the design of pointing out 
that Baptism is no mere ‘ washing of water,’ but a ‘washing of water in the word;’ 
i. e. by means of which man is born again of water, and of the Spirit (John, iii. 5). 
* * * ‘Pjua is therefore, here, as in Heb. i. 3, xi. 3, a description of the Divine 
power and agency in general, which according to their nature must be a spiritual in- 
fluence.” —Olshausen, 7 loc. B. iv. 8. 279. 

1 Eph. vi. 17. (τὴν μάχ. τοῦ Πνεύματος, 6 ἐστιν ῥῆμα Θεοῦ) “How Paul 
can add as an explanation of the Spirit, ὅ ἐστιν ῥῆμα Θεοῦ, presents some obscurity. 
That this expression describes some one particular of the word of God,—His threats 
against the wicked, or the commands of Christianity,—is, considering the universality 
of the phrase, highly improbable. * * * But how can this ‘ word of God’ be de- 
scribed as the Spirit Himself? The Holy Spirit, it appears, exerts an influence which 
accompanies the word of God,—an agency which the word of God calls forth, but 
which is distinct from the word of God itself * * * Whether it be conceived as 
word of God the Father, or as word of Christ (Col. iii. 16), or as influence of the Holy 
Spirit, depends solely on the manner in which the writer regards it: as Revelation 
of the Triune God, it also reconciles the different relations to the Trinity.”—Olshau- 
sen, Comm. B. iv. s. 298. 

* Mr. Westcott, although his attention has been directed to this subject, has not 
noticed the distinct signification of these phrases. He merely observes: “It ig im- 
portant to notice the difference between τὸ ῥῆμα τοῦ Θεοῦ and ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, 
which are both translated in Εἰ. V. ‘the word of God.’”—Elem. of Gosp. Harm., p. 
12, He then contents himself with referring to the passages in which these ex- 
pressions occur; and among others to S. John, iii. 34; viii. 47, in which texts we 
find the plural form—ré ῥήματα τοῦ Θεοῦ. 

= Heb, σὶ 15. 


134 THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE ΝΕ: [LECT. IIL, 


idea §. Peter tells us that it was “" the Spirit of Christ” which 
spake in the prophets.’ 

In bringing to a close this branch of our inquiry, I would 
briefly draw attention to the powerful evidence for the essential 
Divinity of Christ, which is afforded by a comparison of the lan- 
guage employed when referring to His inspired servants, with 
that in which Scripture alludes to Himself. The words “ to re- 
veal,” “to manifest,” or kindred expressions, are never applied 
to Christ, although often used οὐ Him.’ §. Paul writes: “ It 
pleased God to reveal His Son in me ;” and 8. John: “ The Son 
of God was manifested that He might destroy the works of the 
Devil.’* Christ was the Revealer, but received no revelation: 
He was the source of all Divine communications, not the channel 
merely through which they were to be derived. To Him belongs 
the necessary and essential possession of knowledge ; the highest 
perfection of mere human nature consists in its acquisition. The 
knowledge of Him is as essential to the life of the soul as that 
of the Father— This is life eternal, that they might know 
Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast 


115. Pet. 1, 11. This discussion will suitably terminate with the following quota- 
tions. §. Athanasius writes: ἀμέλει οὕτως ἐστὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα ἀδιαίρετον πρὸς τὸν Yidv, 
ὡς μὴ ἀμφιβάλλειν ἐκ τοῦ λεγομένου. ὅτε γὰρ ὁ Λόγος ἐγίγνετο πρὸς τὸν προφήτην, τὰ 
παρὰ τοῦ Λόγου ἐν τῷ Πνεύματι ἐλάλει ὁ προφῆτης.---Αα Serapion. Kp. iii. 5. t. i. p. 
694. This great writer goes on to quote S. Peter’s saying, that ‘the Holy Ghost 
spake by the mouth of David” (Acts, 1. 16); and the words of S. Paul: ‘Since ye 
seek a proof of Christ speaking in me” (2 Cor. xiii. 3); which he compares with the 
Apostle’s remark, ‘The Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city,” &.—Acts, xx. 23. 
Cf. also the reference to 5. Athanasius, Lecture ii. p. 84, note. 

Didymus of Alexandria observes:—‘“ Porro jam frequenter ostendimus ejusdem 
operationis esse Spiritum Sanctum, cujus est Pater et Filius, et in eadem operatione 
unam esse substantiam ; et reciproce eorum qu ὁμοούσια sunt, operationem quoque 
non esse diversam.”—De Spiritu Sancto, c. xxxii, (ap. Galland. t. vi. p. 275.) 

2 “Ubi scientiz religionis, que in Jesu fuerit, divina origo describitur, non usur- 
pari solent verba ἀποκαλύπτεσθαι aut φανεροῦσθαι ; id quod nos jam admonere potest, 
Eum revelationis, que vulgo laudetur, non fuisse participem. In unico tantum loco 
Apoc. i, 1, vox ἀποκάλυψις ita adhibetur * * * ad indicandam Ejus veritatem 
et divinam auctoritatem verba addebantur: ἣν ἔδωκεν Αὐτῷ ὁ Πατήρ. Atque hee 
verba etiam verti possunt: quam demandavit Ei Pater. Hic igitur locus ne conti- 
nere quidem videtur exemplum contrarium. * * * Spiritum illum, qui Apostolos 
edocturus et adjuturus erat, non minus sibi ipsi vindicat Jesus, quam Patri. ‘De 
Meo Ille sumet,’ inquit, (Joan. xvi. 14) ‘que vos edoceat;’ causam interserens Se 
omnia cum Patre communia babere. * * * Dicitur Ipse de ccelo venisse, et in 
ceelo versari (Joan. iii. 13); dicitur Patri proximus assidere (i. 18), cernere que Pater 
agat (v. 19 sq.), solus vidisse Patrem (vi. 46), solus, qualis sit Pater, scire, aliisque 
pro benignitate Sua patefacere (Luc. x. 22). Sic describitur non tam acquisitio quam 
necessaria possessio scientiz.”—C. L Nitzsch De Revel. externa eademque publica, 
pp. 10-12. 

5. Gal. i. 15, 1θ---ὠποκαλύψαι. 

* 18. John, iii, 8--Ο ἰφανερώθη. 


LECT. 1Π1.] THE LOGOS THE REVEALER. 135 


sent.” And that it is the office of the Eternal Son alone to 
convey such knowledge to mankind, and that at His good 
pleasure alone it can be imparted, we learn from the words of 
our text : “No man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father ; 
and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son 
wills to reveal Him.” 


18. John, xvii. 3. 

The argument for the Divinity of Christ, to which I have here drawn attention, 
has not been unnoticed by the Fathers. 8S. Gregory Naz., describing the nature of 
Inspiration as possessed by the sacred writers of both Testaments, observes to this 
effect: Τοῦτο [scil. τὸ Πνεῦμα] ἐνήργει * * * ἐν τοῖς πατράσι, Kai ἐν τοῖς Ipopy- 
ταῖς, ὧν οἱ μὲν ἐφαντάσθησαν Θεὸν, ἢ ἔγνωσαν, οἱ δὲ καὶ τὸ μέλλον προέγνωσαν τυπού- 
μενοι τῷ Πνεύματι τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν, καὶ ὡς παροῦσι συνόντες τοῖς ἐσομένοις. τοιαύτη γὰρ 
ἡ τοῦ Πνεύματος δύναμις. ἔπειτα ἐν τοῖς Χριστοῦ μαθηταῖς ἐῶ γὰρ Χριστὸν 
εἰπεῖν, ὦ παρῆν, οὐχ ὡς ἐνεργοῦν, ἀλλ’ ὡς ὁμοτίμῳ συμπαρο- 
μαρτοῦν" καὶ τούτοις τρισσῶς, καθ᾽ ὅσον οἷοί τε ἦσαν χωρεῖν, καὶ κατὰ καιροὺς τρεῖς. 
—Orat. xii. c 11. t. i. p. 739. 

These three stages are to be dated, as 8. Gregory explains,—({1) from before 
Christ's glorification by His Passion; (2) from His Resurrection ; (3) from His As. 
sension. 








ke 


shiisibe 



























a> Y q mf [ i 

; j | 

ΜΝ A, ber me a iene 

myo ON aa Ἐκ re 

Yat real pe coe 7 τ " ὧν δὴ | ἊΝ 
: ' ὁ ἢ Pad iy hy τ 
on tr 4 > , ἢ I ᾿ ἥ % 
a ΑΣ ᾿ 





LECTURE IV. 


REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. 


“Eece apertis eisdem oculis fidei, David, Amos, Danielem, Petru, Paulum, Mat- 
thz1m intueor, et Sanctus iste Spiritus qualis sit Artifex, considerare volo, sed in ipsa 
mea consideratione deficio. Implet namque citharcedum puerum, et Psalmistam facit. 
Implet pastorem armentarium sycomoros vellicantem, et Prophetam facit. * * * 
Implet piscatorem, et Predicatorem facit. Implet persecutorem, et Doctorem gentium 
facit. * * * © qualis est Artifex iste Spiritus! Null4 ad discendum mord, agitur 
in omne quod voluerit. Mox ut tetigerit mentem docet ; solumque tetigisse docuisse 


est.” 
S. Grre@or. M., Homil. xxx. c. 8. 


Lag ic ἔδειξε τοῦ Δεσπότου Χριστοῦ καὶ τῶν Προφητῶν τὸ διάφορον ὁ * * τὸ 
μέντοι πολυμερῶς, τὰς παντοδαπὰς οἰκονομίας σημαΐνει" τὸ δὲ πολυτρόπως, τῶν θείων 
ὀπτασιῶν τὸ διάφορον. ἄλλως γὰρ ὥφθη τῷ ᾿Αβραὰμ, καὶ ἄλλως τῷ Μωυῇ ὃ * * 
καὶ ᾿Ησαΐας δὲ, καὶ Δανιὴλ, καὶ ᾿Ιεσεκιὴλ διάφορα ἐθεάσαντο σχήματα. τοῦτο διδάσκων 
ὁ τῶν ὅλων ἔφη Θεός" ’ Ἐγὼ ὁράσεις ἐπλήθυνα, καὶ ἐν χερσὶ ἸΤροφητῶν ὡμοιώθην. οὐ γὰρ 
πολύμορφος ἡ Θεΐα φύσις, ἀλλὰ ἀναείδεός τε καὶ ἀσχημάτιστος * * * οὐκ αὐτὴν 
τοΐνυν ἑώρων τὴν ἀνέφικτον φύσιν, ἀλλὰ τινὰ σχήματα, ἃ πρὸς τὴν χρεΐαν ὁ ἀόρατος 
ἐδείκνυε Θεός. 

ΤΉΞΟΡΟΒΕΤΤΒ, In Epist. ad Heb. i. 1.. 


“Qui a nobis Prophetze, in Vetere Testamento Videntes appellabantur: quia vide- 
bant ea que ceteri non videtant, et prospiciebant ea, que in mystero abscondita 


erant.” 
8. Istmporus, Hispal. Etymolog lib. vii. 8. 


LECTURE IV. 


REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. 


1 HAVE ALSO SPOKEN BY THE PROPHETS, AND I HAVE MULTIPLIED VISIONS, AND USED 
SIMILITUDES BY THE MINISTRY OF THE PROPHETS.—AHosea, xii. 10. 


WHEN entering in the last Discourse upon an examination 
of the Scriptures themselves, it was necessary, in the first in- 
stance, to define the field over which that examination must ex- 
tend. It was accordingly shown, from a comparison of both 
portions of the inspired record, and from a consideration of the 
specific analogies which present themselves at every step of our 
progress, that the same organic relation subsists between the Old 
and the New Testament, as between the germ and the flower ;’ 
and that no just or satisfactory theory of Inspiration can be 
proposed, which does not exhibit the inseparable connexion of 
the different books which the Bible combines ; or which does 
not recognise the claim of their respective authors to an equal 
share in the controlling influence and active co-operation of the 
Holy Ghost. 

The facts by which we must be guided, when attempting to 
form any definite idea of Inspiration, may be reduced to two 
classes. Of these classes, one consists of those indications, which 
enable us to infer, with absolute certainty, that the subject mat- 
ter of many portions of Scripture must have been supernaturally 
revealed, while they, with equal clearness, denote that other de- 

? This relation is very clearly illustrated by a remark of Dr. Mill in “The Chris- 
tian Advocate’s Publication” for 1844, p. 413, note: ‘‘ The Catholic interpretation of 
the citation of Hosea [xi. 1.] by S. Matthew [1|. 15] makes Israel and the promised 
Seed to stand in the place of type and antitype, the latter the full development of 
what the other was in germ; ῥητῶς---ἃβ Eusebius says, when Joseph in this ine 
stance brought the infant Jesus from literal Egypt,—xard διάνοιαν δὲ, ὁπηνίκα ἐκ 
τῆς onthe Αἰγύπτου καὶ τῶν τῇδε τόπων ἐπὶ τοὺς οὐρανοὺς dua λαμβάνων αὐτὸν ὁ 


Πατὴρ ὠδήγησεν.---- Εοῖοφ. Prophet. p. 48, ed. Gaisford.” Cf Lect. iii p. 109, note ', and 
tnfra, p. 153, note ", 


140 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. [LECT. Iv. 


tails of the sacred history have been derived from natural sources, 
Such indications are presented by the contents of both the Old 
and the New Testament. The other class of facts —presented 
by its whole manner, and lang 
only the direct evidence which the Bible itself bears to the con- 
stant presence of the Divine element involved in its composition, 
but also certain phenomena which no less plainly attest the co- 
existence of a human element. ΤῸ show how these elements, 
apparently so heterogeneous, may be combined ; to exhibit them 
as not merely concurrent, but as absolutely amalgamated in one 
distinct energy ;—to prove, moreover, that under the controlling 
influence of the Divine principle, there has hence resulted the 
perfect inspiration of all the parts of Scripture, whatever be their 
subject matter,—such is the task to which I must now address 
myself. 

In adopting this course, the direct evidence which the Bible 
supplies is necessarily postponed. That evidence is made up of 
those statements in which the sacred penmen tell us that promises 
of spiritual guidance were given them ;—of the intimations which 
they convey that such promises were fulfilled ;—and of the claims 
to infallible authority which they consequently advance on behalf 
of their own writings, or which they ascribe to the writings of 
their fellows. This portion of the subject will be considered ona 
future occasion.’ Our attention must, for the present, be re- 
stricted to the facts which attest the coexistence of the Divine 
and human elements in the composition of the Scriptures, and 
which supply us with one of the conditions to be satisfied by 
any theory of Inspiration that can claim respect, or Coe ee im- 
partial consideration. 

Two such conditions I have already pointed out,’ as being ne- 
cessary and sufficient for the satisfactory solution of the problem 
before us. In the first place, we know, as a matter of fact, that 
the authorship of the different books of both the Old and the 
New Testament must be referred to certain human agents ; and 
we further perceive, on every page of those books, traces of the 
distinct individuality and personal characteristics of their respec- 
tive authors.’ This co-existence of human agency with the im- 





’ See infra, Lecture vi. 2 Lecture i. pp. 35-40. 
* Bishop Lowth, referring to the qualities called by Longinius Grandeur of Com 


LECT. Iv.] REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. 141 


pelling influence of the Holy Spirit, constitutes the first Con- 
dition to be satisfied by our theory. The facts which impose 
this Condition are not to be questioned. The language, the 
imagery, the forms of expression made use of by the writers of 
Scripture, all correspond, in their most minute details, with what 
we might of ourselves expect from men whose education, and 
social position, and native temperament, were such as theirs are 
known to have been. This feature of the inspired record will 
appear more clearly as we proceed. The style, too, in which 
the different books are written is adapted with the strict- 
est propriety to their subject. The grave and unimagmative 
language which befits historical narrative ; the solemn tone ap- 
propriate to didactic composition ; the poetic coloring naturally 
suited, as we shall see, to Prophecy—ali such characteristics meet 
our view in the several divisions of the Bible. In a word, the 
agents upon whom the Divine influence was exerted, were men 
whose whole lives exemplified, and whose writings, now before 
us, exhibit, all the peculiarities of genius, character, thought, 
and feeling, belonging to their nature as human beings, and re- 
sulting from the several social positions which they respectively 
occupied, as represented in the sacred history. 

In the combination of the two elernents thus co-operating, 
—namely, the actuation by the Spirit of God, and the distinct, 
but subordinate, agency of man,—cousists what has been usually 
termed the ‘dynamical’ theory of Inspiration. According to 
this theory the Holy Ghost employs man’s faculties in conformity 
with their natural laws ;’ at the same time, animating, guiding, 
moulding them so as to accomplish the Divine purpose :* just as 


ception, and Vehemence or Enthusiasm of Passion, observes:—‘‘To each of these we 
must have recourse in the present draquisition, and in applying them to the sacred 
Poets, I shall endeavor to detract nothing from the dignity of that Inspiration which 
proceeds from higher causes, while I allow to the genius of each writer his own pecu- 
liar excellence and accomplishments. Iam indeed of opinion, that the Divine Spirit 
by no means takes such an entire possession of the mind of the Prephet as to subdue 
or extinguish the character and genius of the man: the natural powers of the mind 
are in general elevated and refined, they are neither eradicated nor totally obscured ; 
and though the writings of Moses, of David, and of Isaiah, always bear the marks of 
a Divine and celestial impulse, we may nevertheless plainly discover in them the 
particular characters of their respective authors.”—On the Sacred Poetry of the He- 
brews, Lect. xvi. (Gregory’s transl,, vol i. p. 346). 

? See Westcott’s ‘‘ Elements of the Gospel Harmony,” p. 8, note ". 

? For some remarks respecting the design and structure of the Bible, see Lecture 
i. p. 28, &c. How admirably even the structure of the inspired ~titings has been 
adapted to the wants and imperfections of mankind, has been notice ' in very striking 


142 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. [LECT. Iv. 


in nature, the principle of life, when annexed to certain por- 
tions of matter, exhibits its vital energy in accordance with 
conditions which that matter imposes ; while it governs and di- 
rects, at the same time, the organism with which it is combined.’ 
We must, therefore, look upon Inspiration as a Divine power 
acting not only on, but through, man. We must not regard the 
sacred penmen, on the one hand, as passive machines, yielding 
to an external mechanical force’—such a view takes in merely the 


language by S. Basil when explaining the nature of the Psalms (Homil. in Ps. i., Opp. 
t.i. p. 90). This passage is quoted by Hooker, where he observes that the Church’s 
use of psalmody is (as Rabanus Maurus had expressed it) “to the end that unto 
grosser and heavier minds, whom bare words do not easily move, the sweetness of 
melody might make some entrance for good things.” ‘‘S. Basil,” continues Hooker, 
“himself acknowledging as much, did not think that from such inventions the least 
jot of estimation and credit thereby should be derogated,—‘ For’ (saith he) ‘ whereas 
the Holy Spirit saw that mankind is unto virtue hardly drawn, and that righteousness 
is the less accounted of by reason of the proneness of our affections to that which de- 
lighteth ; it pleased the wisdom of the same Spirit to borrow from melody that pleas- 
ure, which mingleth with heavenly mysteries, causeth the smoothness and softness 
cf that which toucheth the ear, to convey as it were by stealth the treasure of good 
things unto man’s mind. ΤῸ this purpose were those harmonius tunes of psalms de- 
vised for us, that they which are either in years but young. or touching perfection of 
virtue as not yet grown to ripeness, might, when they think they sing, learn. O the 
wise conceit of that Heavenly Teacher, which hath by His skill found out a way, that 
doing those things wherein we delight, we may also learn that whereby we profit!’ "— 
Feel. Pol. B. v. 38. Keble’s ed. vol. ii. p. 162. 

Ὁ T have already (Lect. i. p. 39) adduced this illustration, as well as that supplied 
by the received doctrine of the Church, respecting the co-operation of Divine Grace. 
That in the ordinary exercise of the Holy Spirit’s influence, man’s distinct working 
must ever be combined with God’s continual aiding, is expressly taught by 5. Paul: 
“Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, For it is God which worketh 
in you both to will and to do.” (Τὴν ἑαυτῶν σωτηρίαν κατεργάζεσθε: Θεὸς γάρ ἐστιν 
ὁ ἐνεργῶν ἐν dutv.)—Phil. ii. 12, 13. On this statement of Scripture is founded 8. 
Augustine’s great proposition, incorporated by the Anglican Church in her Tenth 
Article: ‘Sine Illo vel operante ut velimus, vel co-operante cum volumus, ad bona 
pietatis opera nihi] valemus.”—De Gra. et Lib. Arbit. § 33. t. x. p. 735. See also 
supra, p. 44. It must be borne in mind, however, that no more than an analogy ex- 
ists, between this ordinary influence of the Holy Ghost upon Christians in general, 
and that Inspiration which prompted and guided the sacred writers. These two 
agencies of the same Spirit, although analogous, are specifically distinct. This quese 
tion will be discussed in Lecture v. 

? The objections, to which such a view of Inspiration is obnoxious, have been 
briefly noticed in Lecture i. p. 36; to which remarks I may here add the observations 
of a celebrated writer to the same effect. Bishop Warburton, arguing against what 
he calls the “idea of organic [or as it is now usually termed ‘ mechanical’] Inspira- 
tion,” objects, among other matters: ‘‘(1.) It would be putting the Holy Spirit on an 
unnecessary employment; for much of these sacred volumes being historical, and of 
facts and discourses which had fallen under the observations of the writers, they did 
not need His immediate assistance to do this part of their business for them. (2.) Had 
the Scriptures been written under this organic Inspiration, there must have been the 
most perfect agreement amongst the four Evangelists, in every circumstance of the 
smallest fact. But we see there is not this perfect agreement. * * * (3.) Were 
this the true idea of Scripture-inspiration, that each writer was but the mere organ 
of the Spirit. the phraseology or turn of expression had been one and the same 
throughout all the sacred books written in the same language.’”—A Discourse on the 
Office of the Holy Spirit, ed. 1788, vol. iv. p. 566. In avoiding one extreme, however. 


LECT. IV.] REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. 143 


objective side of Inspiration: on the other hand, if we dwell 
solely upon the subjective phase of this influence, we lose sight 
of the living connexion of the writer with God. Were this latter 
conception correct, the authors of Scripture, following the impulse 
of their own genius, and in accordance with their own judgment, 
proceeded, in the natural course of things, to develop new in- 
ferences from the germ of Truth implanted within them ;’ and 
hence, as some have argued, we cannot accept all the con- 
clusions at which they have arrived as either infallible or au- 
thoritative. The true theory, as it recoils from any such negation 
of the Divine majesty of the Bible, so it equally ignores the de- 
fective estimate of the opposite extreme." The human element, 


Bishop Warburton has fallen into another. His definition of Inspiration opens with 
the statement: “That the Holy Spirit so directed the pens of these writers that no 
considerable error should fall from them * * * by preserving them by the more 
ordinary means of Providence, from any mistakes of consequence,” &c.—p. 568: to 
which remarks he appends the curious conclusion: “This seems to be the true idea 
of the Inspiration in question. This only doth agree with all appearances; and will 
fully answer the purpose of an inspired writing, which is to afford an INFALLIBLE RULE 
{the emphasis is the Bishop's own] for the direction of the Catholic Church.” 

1 “A gift,” observes Mr. Morell, speaking of the Pentateuch, which its author 
“was left to make use of as necessity or propriety might suggest.” See the passage 
already quoted, p. 27, note *. “1 know,” continues Mr. Morell, “that I am speaking 
the conviction of many learned men and devout Christians, when I say, that the 
blind determination to represent every portion of the Old Testament as being alike 
written entirely under the guidance of God, and by the special direction of the Spirit, 
has been one of the most fearful hinderances which ever stood in the way of an 
honest, firm, and rational belief in the reality of a Divine Inspiration at all.”—Phi- 
losophy of Religion, p. 178. 

* “The earliest apologists of modern times confined themselves to the literal as- 
sertion of a mechanical power. They regarded the Divine agency as operating ex- 
ternally and not internally ;—as acting on man and not through man; they lost the 
idea of an active energy in that of a passive state. At present the case seems re- 
versed, and the reason is evident. Our predecessors had to assert the reality of 
Inspiration against those who ridiculed its very name, and denied the possibility of a 
revelation; while we have to show that it is a peculiar influence, against those who see 
in the Apostles only the ordinary working of God. They had to contend with those 
who denied the spirit through the outward form; while we have to resist those who 
deny the outward form to secure the spirit,—who claim as the primal attributes of 
man what we hold to be the after-gifts of heaven.”-—Westcott, Hlements of the Gospel 
Harmony, p. 5. Mr. Morell again supplies us with an illustration which will exhibit 
the justice of Mr. Westcott’s remark: “If it be said that the Providence of God must 
have watched over the composition and construction of a canonical book, which was 
to have so vast an influence on the destiny of the world,—we are quite ready to ad- 
mit, ard even ourselves to assert it. But in the same sense Providence watches over 
every other event which bears upon the welfare of man, although the execution of it 
be left to the freedom of human endeavor. And what, after all, need we in the 
Scriptures more than this? Why should we be perpetually craving after a stiff, 
literal, verbal infallibility? Christianity consists not in propositions—it is a life in 
the soul; its laws and precepts are not engraven on stone; they can only be en- 
graven on the fleshy tables of the heart.”—Jbid. p. 183. Few, indeed, will be found 
to deny that ‘Christian ty consists not in propositions:”—as few, perhaps, as would 
allege that «an electric current consists in the formulz by which Gauss or Faraday 


144 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION, [LECT. Iv. 


instead of being suppressed, becomes an integral part of the 
agency employed ;—moulded, it is true, and guided, and brought 
into action by the co-operation of the Spirit, but not the less 
really, on that account, participating in the result produced. 
Nay more, the peculiar type of each writer’s nature was even es- 
sential to the due reception of that particular phase of truth 
presented by his statements: his share in the great work was 
apportioned to the order of his intellect and the class of his emo- 
tions ; while his characteristic form of expression was absolutely 
requisite, for the adequate and complete conveyance of his Divine 
message. Without the moving power, man could not have 
grasped the Divine communications ; without the living instru- 
ment those communications could not have received fitting ex- 
pression. The Bible, it has been well observed, “ is authorita- 
tive, for it is the voice of God ; it is intelligible, for it is in the 
language of men.” 

It appears to me, however, that the ‘dynamical’ theory, 
taken alone, is not sufficient to account for all the phenomena 
which the Bible presents to our view. By it, the first Condition, 
only, of our problem is satisfied: We must, therefore, seek for 
a further principle, according to which the remaining Condition, 
which the nature of the case equally imposes, may be complied 
with. This Condition arises from that class of facts which indi- 
cate, as I have observed above, that a considerable portion of 
what the Bible contains consists of matters already known to 
the sacred writers, or the knowledge of which might be—nay, 
which we actually know often was—derived from the ordinary 
sources of information that were at their command.’ Other por- 
tions, again, are such as they could not have become acquainted 
with, except by an immediate communication from heaven.’ The 


have expressed its laws. The knowledge, however, of what Christianity is, as well as 
of the laws of electricity, must be communicated by propositions; and it is not more 
unnatural that the Christian should “ crave” for an assurance that God’s Revelation 
has came to him unclouded by human error, than that the student in the exact 
sciences should “crave” for perfect accuracy in the structure of the formule, by which 
the philosopher from whom he derives his information, has expressed the secrets of 
Nature. For some remarks on the meaning of the phrase ‘ Christian knowledge,’ 
see infra, Lecture vi. 


' We&tcott.—Zlbid. p. 8. 
2 See, for example, the statement of S. Luke in the introduction to his Gospel,— 


the opening of S. John’s First Epistle, ὅθ. Compare also the remarks on this sub 


ject .n Lecture i. pp. 39, 40, ὅσ. 
ἡ E. g. The announcements of the future; the account of the Creation, ὅθ, I 


LECT. IV.] REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. 145 


principle which satisfies this Condition is that of the distinction 
between Revelation and Inspiration. I have shown, on a former 
occasion,’ that this distinction is specific, and not merely one of 
degrec ; and we perceived, in the last Discourse, that the sources, 
too, from which Revelation and Inspiration respectively proceed, 
are also different :—the former having as its author the Second, 
the latter the Third, Person, in the Holy Trinity. 

It may be well, moreover, again to observe, that the gift of 
Inspiration was equally required by those among the authors of 
Scripture who had received revelations, as by those to whom 
Divine knowledge was never thus imparted, In the former case 
Inspiration was necessary, not only in order to enable the sacred 
writer correctly to apprehend, and faithfully to express, the sub- 
stance of the Divine communication ;’ but also for a further reason. 
It is to be remembered, that when a revelation had been once 
conveyed to any individual and publicly announced by him, it 
became as much a matter of history as any natural event of which 
the Bible takes notice. We have reason to believe that, in the 
great majority of cases, the Divine communications were not 
committed to writing, for some time after they were received τ᾿ 
there are even instances of several years having elapsed before 
they were thus placed on record.‘ Now, in all such cases the co- 


do not, of course, mean to deny that some of the sacred writers received immediate 
revelations even of matters of fact which they might have learned from human tes- 
timony. I have already adduced one instance of this kind, recorded in the passage 
quoted (p. 40, note *) from 1 Kings, xiv. 5. The case of S. Paul is still more to the 
point. He tells us of ‘‘ the Gospel which was preached of him,” that he “neither 
received it of man, neither was he taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ”— 
Gal. i. 11, 12; and we know from 1 Cor. xi. 23; xv. 3, that such revelations con- 
veyed the knowledge of matters of fact which he might have learned from the other 
Apostles, as well as of matters of doctrine. It is plain, however, that such cases 
were exceptions to the usual course of the Divine Economy—see e. g. the last note. 

? Lecture i. p. 42, &e. 

? See Lecture i. p. 43, and infra, p. 175, note *. 

3. This obviously took place whenever God’s will was unfolded by means of 
dreams; whether we regard the dreams of men who were never inspired,—as Pha- 
raoh, Nebuchadnezzar, &c.,—or those of prophets, who were also to the fullest extent 
guided by Inspiration. Thus Daniel writes: “In the first year of Belshazzar king 
of Babylon, Daniel had a dream and vision of his head upon his bed: then he wrote 
the dream, and told the sum of the matters. Daniel spake and said, I saw in my 
vision by night,” &c.—vii. 1, 2. The same is to be said of the communications from 
neaven which the Patriarchs received, and which Moses has recorded in the Book of 
Genesis. We cannot doubt that the promises to Abraham, for example, were handed 
jown and preserved by his descendants; and that Moses was familiar, from his child- 
hood, with those revelations which unfolded the future glories of his nation. Thus, 
too, in the New Testament, S. Luke has given an account of the Annunciation (ch. i. 
26-38), of the communication of the Angel to Cornelius (Acts, x.), &e. &e. 

* Thus we read: “ And it came to passin the fourth year of Jehoiakim, the son of 


10 


146 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION [LECT Iv. 


operation of the Holy Spirit was indispensable, in order both to 
bring the original revelation before the mind of the sacred writer, 
in its primitive perfection, and to enable him to record it with 
infallible accuracy.’ 

By attending to these principles, which satisfy the second 
Condition of our problem, we are able at once to perceive the 
weakness of the great mass of those arguments, which are com- 
monly brought forward in order to prove the existence of error or 
imperfection in the Bible.” In such objections it is tacitly as- 
sumed that the matters, to which exception is taken, are recorded 
as being actually revelations from God ; while in truth they are 
often nothing more than historical details, which have been in- 
serted, as simple matters of fact, in the Scripture narrative, under 
the guidance of its Divine Author.’ 


Josiah king of Judah, that this word came unto Jeremiah from the Lord, saying, Take 
thee a roll of a book, and write therein all the words that I have spoken unto thee 
against Israel, and against Judah, and against all the nations, from the day I spake 
unto thee, from the days of Josiah, even unto this day.”—Jer. xxxvi. 1, 2. But we 
also know that such revelations were given during a period of twenty-three years: 
‘The word that came to Jeremiah concerning all the people of Judah in the fourth 
year of Jehoiakim * * * saying, from the thirteenth year of Josiah * * * 
even unto this day, that is, the three and twentieth year, the word of the Lord hath 
come unto me, and I have spoken unto you rising early and speaking.” —Jer, xxv. 1-3. 

1 ἘΣ g. in the case to which the last note refers, “ after that the king had burned . 
the roll” on which the prophet had written all that God had commanded him—“ the 
word of the Lord came to Jeremiah * * * saying, Take thee again another roll 
and write in it all the former words that were in the first roll.”—Jer. xxxvi. 27, 28. 
Indeed, if a record of Prophecy was to be preserved at all, this Divine guidance was 
obviously indispensable. Eichhorn observes that Greek antiquity seems to have at- 
tached no importance to such preservation of the words of an oracular announcement. 
Hence, when one writer has not copied another, such oracles have been handed down 
in different forms, which often convey meanings altogether dissimilar. EH. g—When 
the Thasians, in obedience to the laws of Draco, cast into the sea the statue of the 
athlete Theagenes (by the fall of which a man had been accidentally killed), the 
Pythia, consulted on the subject of a famine which occurred shortly afterwards, re- 
plied: Θεαγένην δ᾽ ἄμνηστον ἀφήκατε τὸν μέγαν iuéwv—according to the version given 
by Pausanias (Lib. vi. 11); while the form in which it is reported by Husebius 
(“‘Preepar. Evang.” v. 34), is altogether different: Εἰς πάτρην φυγάδας κατάγων 
Δήμητραν ἀμήσεις. See his “ Kinleitung in das A. T.”  B. iv. s. xxiii. 

2 As exemplifying the neglect of the distinction here insisted upon, and its results, 
I may adduce the words of M. Athanase Coquerel: “God’s share in Revelation is 
called Inspiration. Inspiration is a transmission of ideas from God to man.”—Chris- 
tianity, p. 202.“ Religious and moral truth exist in Revelation in a relative degree 
only; scientific truth, therefore, could not be found there in an absolute degree. 
These considerations end in leading to the discovery that Revelation must contain 
errors in what regards scientific truth. This was a condition strictly necessary to the 
gift of Revelation.” —Jbid. p. 211. 

3. See, for example, the quotation from Mr. Coleridge, supra, Lecture i. p. 41, note *. 
Or, still more to the point, take the class of objections founded, as in the case of M 
Coquerel, upon the (alleged) mistakes committed by the writers of Scripture, when 
touching upon matters of science. As illustrating the bearing of the distinction be- 
tween Reyeiation and Iaspiration ia anuswer‘az sucn objections, I weuld 1efer the 


LECT. Iv.] REVELATION AND INSPIRATION, 147 


Having made these preliminary remarks, I now proceed to 
state the arguments by which the ‘dynamical’ theory of Inspi- 
ration may be supported. Inspiration, I must again repeat, is 
to be understood as denoting that Divine influence, under which 
all the parts of the Bible have been committed to writing— 
whether they contain an account of ordinary historical facts, or 
the narrative of supernatural revelations. In the reception and 
utterance of such revelations, it is admitted by all who allow that 
any communication has taken place between earth and heaven, 
that the human agent can be regarded in no other light than as 
an instrument in the hand of God, by whose intervention His 
counsels have been made known to man. If in any case here 
assuredly, the strict ‘mechanical’ theory of Inspiration (if true) 
must hold good ;—a theory according to which each phrase and 
expression in the Bible has been set down by the sacred penmen 
at the dictation of the Holy Ghost. But if the facts which we 
are about to consider warrant our asserting that, even in the re- 
ception of what are, in the most literal sense, revelations, human 
agency has had its full scope; and that each prophetic an- 
nouncement, as recorded in the pages of Scripture, bears the un- 
doubted stamp of the genius, and mental culture, and circum- 
stances of the prophet who has given it utterance ;—we are surely 
justified in concluding that, when relating matters of history or 
drawing inferences from previous revelations, the same scope, at 
least, was allowed to the individual characteristics of the inspired 
writers. 

The general method according to which the Divine Scheme 
has been developed, might, indeed, of itself, justify such a con- 
clusion. We are expressly taught by the whole tenor of Scrip- 
ture, that the course which God has pursued in conveying His 
revelations to man has been always singularly marked by the 
employment of natural means: and further, that at each step 
in the progress of His providential dispensations, and in the ac- 
complishment of prophetic announcements, the expenditure (if 
one may reverentially use the term) of miraculous agency has 


reader to the remarks on “ Joshua’s Miracle,” Lecture viii. infra, where other topics 
of this nature will be considered. With great truth Jahn observes: Diese Bestim- 
mung des Begriffs der Inspiration, und der Unterschied von Offenbarung muss sorgs 
faltig beobachtet werden, indem beyde sehr hiufig verwechselt werden, woraus dann 
grosse Schwierigkeiten erwachsen.”—Hinieit. ler Th. 5. 92. 


| 
y 


148 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION, [LECT. IV. 


ever been strikingly sparing. This principle may be briefly illus- 
trated. Take, for example, a fact pointed out by a distinguished 
writer on Prophecy. David was anointed, and therefore pre- 
dicted, as king long before he ascended the throne. “ By a series 
of events, following in the ordinary course of Providence, without 
any miracle interposed, this prediction was brought to pass. 
* = * No other single narrative of Scripture is so prolix and 
circuitous as that which describes the accomplishment of this par- 
ticular prediction. The sequel of things described is protracted, 
often retrograde in the expectation, and apparently receding from 
the event ; and it fills many chapters’ before it is brought to a 
close. Upon which I would observe,’ continues Mr. Davison, 
“that it offers, and seems to be designed to offer, an example, in 
the actual development, of the progress of Prophecy to its com- 
pletion, whatever may be the mazes and flexures through which 
it has to work its way ; and suggests to us, in other cases not 
so particularly narrated, how the Divine prescience penetrates 
through the perplexity of human affairs, and its predictions, 
without a sensible miracle, pass to their near or their remote ful- 
filment.”’ ΤῸ this acute observation another illustration may be 
added. In considering the single predictions of Scripture apart 
from the complete structure of Prophecy, we may observe, that 
a certain method has been almost uniformly pursued, which con- 
stitutes, as it were, the Law according to which the different 
portions of God’s Revelation have been communicated :*—namely, 


? From 1 Sam. xvi. to 2 Sam. v. 

? “Discourses on Prophecy,” pp. 183, 4. 

5.1 am anxious to speak here with the utmost caution; as my object is merely to 
illustrate the ordinary course of Revelation, not to take any part in the controversy 
which has arisen on a subject with which the preseut work is concerned but indi- 
rectly. Some valuable remarks on this controversy are to be found in the opening 
chapter of Hofmann’s treatise—‘‘ Weissagung und Erfiillung.” Many writers of re- 
cent times, it is there pointed out, have laid down such ‘ Laws’ of the relation of 
Prophecy to its fulfilment, as only embrace certain cases; and consequently they ex- 
clude from the rank of Prophecy all those parts of Scripture to which their arbitrary 
‘Law’ does not apply. Others, again, fearing the excesses to which such views have 
led, have gone into the opposite extreme; and by looking merely to the single phe- 
nomena, have given up, from the first, all idea of the existence of any relation or or- 
der in the scheme of Prophecy :—of this latter class Hengstenberg may be adduced 
as an example (see infra , p. 150, note ἢ. Among writers of the former class may be 
reckoned Dr. Arnold. ‘ Prophecy,” he observes, “fixes our attention on principles, 
on good and evi!, on truth and falsehood, on God and on His enemy. * 
Prophecy then is God’s voice, speaking to us respecting the issue, in all time, of that 
great struggle which is the real interest of human life, the struggle between good and 
evil. * * * The Seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent’s head, but the ser- 
pent notwithstanding shall first bruise Ilis heel. So completely is the earliest 


LECT. IV.] REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. 149 


that each prediction, with scarcely an exception, proceeds from 
and attaches itself to some definite fact in the historical pres- 
ent.’ In other words, when the future is to be foreshadowed, 
certain events of the time, historical or incidental, are selected 
as occasions on which may be founded the several disclos- 
ures of the Divine will.” The Almighty—who can question 


aoa recorded in Scripture, the sum and substance, so to speak, of the whole 
anguage of Prophecy, how diversified soever in its particular forms.”— Sermons, 5th 
ed. vol. i. p. 377. And again: ‘Other events, lesser mercies, earthly deliverances, 
are in part the subject of Prophecy, and in part its fulfilment. But its language, the 
language of hope in God, naturatly goes beyond these. * * * And therefore it 
seeks elsewhere its real fulfilments; it tarries not on those lower heights which 
would receive it on its first ascent from the valley, but ascends and mounts con- 
tinually to the mountain of God.”—Tbid. p. 400, note. Almost to the same effect Ols- 
hausen remarks, that the Bible represents the contest between Good and Hyil as 
foreshadowed by the relation between Israel and other nations. “Israel has con- 
tinually its opponents among the other nations, who contravene its efforts towards 
Good, but who serve, at the same time, in the season of its disobedience, as a scourge 
in the hand of God. First, the Egyptians with their Pharaoh; then, the Canaanites 
with their kings; again, Babylon with its despots; Rome, in fine,—the eagles who 
devour the carcass. These references, the Bible again understands in a higher sense 
of humanity, of the spiritual Israel, which struggles towards its lofty aim: it, too, has 
its Egyptians, its Babylon, as well as ‘ Israel after the flesh’ (Rev. xi. 8; xiv. 8),”— 
Ein Wort iib. tief. Schriftsinn, s. 96. 

This mode of regarding Prophecy involves much that is just as well as profound; 
and the principle of the pregnant signification of Scripture which it implies will be 
adverted to in Lecture vii. The objection, however, to which Dr. Arnold’s view is 
obnoxious, refers to the exclusive manner in which he has applied this principle, and 
to the consequences which he has inferred from it. In the year 1825 he wrote as 
follows:—‘I think that, with the exception of those prophecies which relate to our 
Lord, the object of Prophecy is rather to delineate principles and states of opinion 
which shall come, than external events. I grant that Daniel seems to furnish an ex- 
ception.” —Life and Correspondence, 6th ed. p. 59. In 1840, however, the full result 
is stated: “1 am very glad, indeed, that you like my Prophecy Sermons: the points 
in particular on which I did not wish to enter, if I could help it, but which very 
likely I shall be forced to touch on, relate to the latter chapters of Daniel, which, if 
genuine, would be a clear exception to my canon of interpretation, as there can be no 
reasonable spiritual meaning made out of the Kings of the North and South. But 
1 have long thought that the greater part of the book of Daniel is most certainly a 
very late work, of the time of the Maccabees; and the pretended prophecy, about the 
kings of Grecia and Persia, and of the North and South, is mere history, like the 
poetical prophecies in Virgil and elsewhere * * * that there may be genuine 
fragments in it, is very likely.”—Jbid. p. 505. 

| “Die ichte Prophetie wurzelt zunichst auf dem historischen Grunde der Gegen- 
wart.” —Hiivernick, Hinlet. Th. u. Abth. ii. 5. 52. 8. Augustine clearly recognises 
this principle, when, speaking of the prediction of Nathan, 2 Sam. vii. 12-14 (see infra, 
p. 152, note 7); he observes: —“ Facta est quidem nonnulla imago rei futuree etiam in 
Salomone, in eo quod Templum zedificavit, et pacem habuit secundum nomen suum 
* %* * sed efdem sud persond per umbram futuri preenunciabat etiam ipse Chris- 
tum Dominum nostrum, non exhibebat. Unde quzedam de illo ita scripta sunt, quasi 
de ipso ista predicta sint, dum Scriptura Sancta etiam rebus gestis prophetans, quo- 
dam modo in eo figuram delineat futurorum.”—De Civ. Dei, xvii. 8, t. vii. p. 471. 

? Otto Strauss, in his ‘‘ Exposition of the Prophecy of Nahum, illustrated from the 
Monuments of Assyria” (Berlin, 1853) has pointed out the important bearing of this 
principle upon the interpretation of Prophecy: ‘‘Sacros Israelitarum prophetas con- 
stat non temere nec nulla provocatos occasione et necessitate fuisse vaticinatos, 
* * * Cujusvis igitur vaticinii causa et ratio e temporis sui conditione eruenda 


150 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. [LECT. Iv. 


it ?\—could in all cases have unveiled His purpose, without 
observing any such method, or acting in accordance with any 
such Law: but, He has not only thought fit to disclose His 
will gradually—as the Scripture narrative clearly implies,— 


est.’—c. I. p. xix. As an example of this, we may adduce the connexion of the 
sins of Manasseh with the predictions respecting the Exile in Babylon (cf. 2 Kings, 
xxiv. 3; Jer. xy. 4). Observe, too, that the duration of that exile exactly corre- 
sponded with the space of time which elapsed between the first year of the reign of 
Manasseh, and the carrying out of the reformation by Josiah. Manasseh reigned 
fifty-five years (2 Chron. xxxiii. 1); Amon, two years (ver. 21); and in the twelfth 
year of his reign Josiah ‘‘ began to purge Judah and Jerusalem from the high places” 
(2 Chron. xxxiy. 3), Now 55+-2-+4-13==70. See O. Strauss, ὑδία. p. xxx. 

? This the objection of Dr. Hengstenberg, who is quoted by Hofmann (loc. cit. 5. 
3) as a type of the second class of writers to whom I have referred, p. 149, note; and 
who contend tha ὃ prediction is to be prized the more, the more isolated it appears, 
—its superhumaz »rigin being thus rendered, it is thought, of easier proof, Hengs- 
tenberg’s words aie: ‘‘ Wer will Gott die Regel vorschreiben, welche er bei seinen 
Offenbarungen befolgen soll? Wer will sagen, dass er das was er in der Regel nicht 
that, nie thun diirfe ?”— Chrisiologie des A. T., 1. ii. s. 193. And he elsewhere alleges, 
as a reason for his rejection of the ‘Law’ of Prophecy now before us, that what is 
thus connected with an actual event might easily be regarded, not as a Divine reve- 
lation, but as a mere subjective foreboding—“ blosse subjective Vorahnung.’— 
Beitrige zur Einleit. ins A. T., i. s. 188. This latter remark, I should observe, is 
directed immedietely, and with justice, against the theory of Nitzsch, that Prophecy 
is ‘‘the represented future of the kingdom of God, grounded on an internal perception 
of the Divine decree, which, ever proceeding from a definite point of the historical 
present, points out with more or less dictinetness of detail the completion of the Di- 
vine economy; and whilst it is conversant with the Divine in history, but not with 
the outward matter, characterizes reality only in those leading points wherein it es- 
pecially accords with truth.”—System der christl. Lehre, s. 67. (Montgomery’s transl 
§ 35, p. 88.) On such a theory (as Hengstenberg truly observes), all that is Divine 
in Prophecy would disappear, and ‘‘ the prophecy of Redemption in general could be 
derived from man’s need of Redemption, combined with the knowledge of Divine 
love.” —Bettrage, l. c. 

But still the perversion of a principle must not induce us to overlook its truth, or 
tempt us to pass over the facts which Scripture offers to our view. No doubt the 
Lord Almighty can convey the knowledge of His will when and how He pleases ; and 
they who venture to argue, ἃ priori, that such or such a ‘ Law’ expresses the relation 
of all Prophecy to its fulfilment, enter upon depths which human reason cannot pre- 
tend to fathom: but we may reverentially approach this inquiry, following the course 
allowed to be just and reasonable in all sound philosophy. In other words, we may 
investigate the occasions on which, as the Bible tells us, God’s revelations have been 
given; and we may inquire,—not assuredly what has determined the course of the 
Divine conduct,—but what, in point of fact, has constituted it. In short, we may seek 
in the pages of Scripture whether the revelations of God have come to man without 
order, or connexion, or method ;—or whether they have been communicated (to bor- 
row the language of philosophy) according to some ‘ Law.’ Now the Bible, by no 
means obscurely, points out the existence of a remarkable relation between the Di- 
vine announcements and certain historical events; nay more (in opposition to the 
doctrine laid down by Nitzsch), we can continually point out the mutual connexion 
which subsists between the Divine element in history, and its external matter. Thus 
Israel, in all its institutions, as well as in its external history, is one grand prophecy 
of the future. Take, e. g. the 78th Psalm, in which the entire history of the chosen 
people is specially particularized, and expounded in a spiritual manner. The New 
Testament (1 Cor. x.) informs us how 8. Paul understood this Psalm, and applied it 
to Christ: nay more, an Evangelist places its Messianic reference beyond any doub%, 
by his adoption of its opening words to describe the Saviour’s mode of instruction: 
“Without a parable spake He not unto them: that it might be fuljilled which was 


LECT. IV.] REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. 151 


He has also, as a general rule, availed Himself (if we may 
use the phrase) of certain occasions which were presented 
from time to time, and which formed a species of natural 
channel for the conveyance of His wevelations.' Instances of 


spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things 
which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.”—S. Matt. xiii. 35. 

In opposition to the view here stated, Hengstenberg considers it a needless task 
to seek for the relation of Prophecy to the time and occasion of its delivery. His 
error will be seen at once, if we bear in mind his mode of treating the Psalms, in 
which it is especially important to trace those occasions in David’s history, which were 
selected as points to which predictions respecting Christ might be, as it were, at- 
tached. Neglecting this principle, Hengstenberg regards the fulfilment in our Lord’s 
history of some of the Psalms to be merely casual; and excludes from his “ Christ- 
ology” others which the New Testament unquestionably represents as Messianic. 
In that work (B. 1. i. s. 94, w. 5. 154), he divides those Psalms which alone he allows 
to be Messianic, into two classes: (1) those which describe the Messiah in Glory; 
viz., Psalms ii, xlv., lxxii., cx.; (2) those in which a suffering Messiah is depicted ; 
viz., Psalms xvi., xxii., xl. Hofmann with reason observes: “ Why is the 45th Psalm 
to be preferred to the 8th, when both are referred in the same manner to Jesus in 
the Epistle to the Hebrews, and nowhere else? Jesus Himself quotes a passage 
from Ps. xli. with the words, “ that the Scripture may be fulfilled,” and refers it to 
Himself [viz. Ps. xli. 9, ‘He that eateth bread with Me hath lifted up his heel 
against Me”—S. John, xiii. 18]; is this Psalm to be regarded as less Messianic than 
the 22nd? We clearly see why Hengstenberg has omitted the 8th and 41st Psalms; 
he found it impossible to refer them throughout to Jesus.”—loc. cit. s. 4. 

1 We can trace this ‘Law’ of Prophecy even in cases which may appear to pre- 
sent an exception: I mean the announcement by name, so many years before their 
appearance, of Josiah (1 Kings, xiii. 2), and Cyrus (Isai. xliv. 28; xlv. 1),—the soli- 
tary instances of this kind of prediction to be found in the Old Testament. In each 
of these cases there is the closest connexion with the immediate occasion of the pro- 
phetic communication. In 1 Kings, xiii. 2, the name Josiah (ΘΝ) expresses the 
fundamental thought of the prediction of which it is a part. The prediction directly 
refers to the signification of this name [Gesenius explains it to mean: “quem Jeho- 
vah sanat: a rad. 7x sanavit, et 177” ], which is as expressive here, as is that of 
Immanuel, when employed by Isaiah (ch. vii. 14). The announcement of “ the man 
of God” that “ Jehovah founds, or supports”—which is implied by the name Josiah 
—is obviously opposed to the erection of that altar by Jeroboam, the destruction 
of which it was the prophet’s immediate design to proclaim: ‘‘O altar, altar, thus 
saith the Lord; Behold a child shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by 
name. * * * And he gave a sign the same day, saying * * * Behold the 
altar shall be rent,” &c.,—in other words, Jehovah, not Jeroboam, is the true founder 
of the altar. In the next place, as to Isaiah’s prediction of Cyrus:—(1.) We are to 
notice how completely ideal is the prophet’s description of this king. By him, for the 
first time among the rulers of the heathen, will homage be paid to the God of Israel. 
He is to be the counterpart to Egyptian Pharaoh: “ΗΘ shall build My city, and he 
shall let go My captives, not for price nor reward, saith the Lord of Hosts.”—Isai, 
xlv. 13. He is God’s “shepherd,” His “anointed.” Jehovah declares of him: “I 
have raised up one from the north, and he shall come: from the rising of the sun 
(w7aw-717272) shall he call upon My Name.”—xli. 25. (2) The passage just quoted, 
combined with the statements that “the righteous man” (xli. 2), and “a ravenous 
bird” (xlvi: 11) were to come “ from the east,” supplies the occasion on which is founded 
the prophet’s allusion to the primary s.gnification of the name Coresch (075), or 
Cyrus, which corresponds to the old Persian—“ huaré ksaéta,” i, e. Sol rex (the final 
» belonging to the nominative). The name, therefore, is to be regarded as a regal 
appellative; as a ‘nomen dignitatis.’ It is, moreover, certain, that Cyrus before he 
ascended the throne was called Agradates, the title Cyrus being a species of apothe- 
osis. Bournouf observes: ‘Le titre de soled/ s’est naturellement attache au nom du 
monarque, surtout dans un pays comme la Perse, ou cet astre recevait sous son propre 


152 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. [LEOT. Iv. 


this mode of acting will present themselves to every mind. 
Suffice it here to mention the memorable example afforded 
by the narrative contained in the seventh chapter of the sec- 
ond Book of Samuel, where God employs the occasion of cor- 
recting the error into which Nathan’s precipitancy had led him, 
for the purpose of conveying the fundamental prediction, which 
represents Christ as the Son of David, and on which are founded 
all the Messianic Psalms.’ By this fact of the connexion of single 


nom de ‘huaré’ 165 adorations des hommes.” The employment by Isaiah of the for- 
eign word Coresch, is not more strange than the use by Nahum (ch. iii. 17) of the 
Persian “050, which our version renders “ captains,” and Gesenius “ Satraps.” There 
is, besides, a strong resemblance in sound between 715, and the Hebrew 57m which 
occurs in Isaiah, xix. 18, and where it is rendered in the margin of our Bibles, ‘‘ He- 
res or the Sun.” That Isaiah himself employs Coresch merely as a “nomen digni- 
tatis,” and that he is unconscious (see infra, Lecture v.) of its personal application, is 
further confirmed by the absence, in his use of the word, of the predicate “ King of 
Persia,” by which Cyrus is invariably designated when named elsewhere in the Old 
Testament,—in Chronicles, in Ezra, and in Daniel. See Hiavernick’s “ Hinleitung,” 
Th. 1. Abth. ii. s, 163 ff. Gesenius’ remark on ΠῚ is “‘ Greeci hoc nomen Persis solem 
notasse observant (v. Ctesias ap. Plut. Artax. Opp., t. i. p. 1012. Etym. M. Κῦρος 
κοῦρος ἥλιος), et recte quidem.” 

1 “ And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will 
set up thy seed after thee * * * and I will establish his kingdom. He shall 
build an house for My Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for 
ever. I will be his Father, and he shall be My son.”—vers. 12-14. ‘“ Almost all the 
more ancient Christian expositors, and several of the Jewish, refer this prediction to 
Christ: * * * the majority of the earlier Christian writers discern in it a ‘double 
sense,’ either by referring part of it to Solomon, and part to Christ; or by regarding 
Solomon as its proper object, and representing him and his kingdom as types of the 
Kingdom of Christ.”—Sack, Apologetik, s. 274. 

Kbrard, in his comment on Heb. i. 5, points out how the inspired writer exhibits, 
in that passage, the connexion of the Messianic Psalms with this grand announce- 
ment of Nathan, by combining it with the unquestionable prediction of the Second 
Psalm: “For,” argues the Apostle, ‘unto which of the angels said He at any time, 
Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee? And again, I will be to Him a 
Father, and He shall be to Me a Son.” The language of Gen. iii, 15, and Deut. xviii. 
15, denoted, it is true, the Messiah in general terms: in the words of Nathan, how- 
ever, was it for the first time revealed, that He should spring from the line of David; 
and also that His Sonship should be such as could not properly be derived from Da- 
vid, but only fromm God. S. Augustine has acutely remarked, that the fact of Solomon 
having been anointed king, during David’s lifetime (1 Kings, i. 32~53), of itself proves 
that this prediction of Nathan could not have been fulfilled literally in his person: 
“Nec ob aliud, vivente adhuc patre suo David, regnare Salomon ccepit, quod nulli 
iliorum regum contigit, nisi ut hine quoque satis eluceat, non esse ipsum, quem pro: 
phetia ista preesignat, quae ad ejus patrem loquitur, dicens ‘ Kt erit cum repleti fuerint 
dies tui,’” &c.—De Civ. Dei, xvii. 8. t. vii. p. 471. Indeed, Solomon himself implies 
as much, 1 Kings, viii. 27. “ Not less clearly,” writes Ebrard, “was David conscious 
of the fact that Nathan’s words were to find their full accomplishment, for the first 
time, ‘in the distant future (ΤΩ) in a Man, who is Himself the Lord Jehovah.’ 
—2 Sam. vii. 19 [‘‘ Thou hast spoken also of Thy servant’s house for a great while to 
come. And is this the manner of man, O Lord God?” H.V.:—the latter words mean 
ing, according to Ebrard: ‘“ And this is the manner of the Man, The Lord Jehovah” ; 
or as it is explained 1 Chron. xvii. 17, ‘in a Man who is exalted to the rank of Jeho- 
vah.’ [The English version reads here: ‘‘Thou hast regarded me according to the 
estate of a man of high degree, O Lord God.”] On this promise, so well understood, 
David bui'ds the hope which he expresses in the Second Psalm.”- 8. 42. (Cf Acts, i# 


LECT. IV.] REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. 153 


predictions with the historical present, may be explained, I con- 
ceive, that characteristic of Prophecy which consists in its ‘ double 
sense ;”' according towhich the particular is brought forward as a 
pledge of what lies far beyond, without representing the former 
as the true or highest end, Thus the prediction which foresha- 
dowed the restoration of Judah from captivity in Babylon,’ had a 
further end. ‘ It is a subject,” observes Mr. Davison, “‘ akin to 
the Evangelical Restoration, Every Christian understands the 


resemblance.’”* 


30, 31). Of the manner in which the English Version renders these passages Ebrard 
remarks: “If ΣΝ were not in apposition to ΘΝ στ, but a vocative, the latter 
words would be altogether without meaning.”—Jbid. For an analogous, but different, 
interpretation, see Kennicott’s ‘Remarks on select passages in the Old Testament,” 
p. 115. 

1 “This age of Prophecy [viz. that of David and Solomon], in particular, brings 
the doctrine of the ‘double sense,’ as it has been called, before us. For Scripture 
Prophecy is so framed in some of its predictions, as to bear a sense directed to two 
objects, of which structure the predictions concerning the kingdom of David furnish 
a conspicuous example; and I should say, an unquestionable one, if the whole prin- 
ciple of that kind of interpretation had not been by some disputed and denied. 
* * * The double sense of Prophecy, however is of all things the most remote 
from fraud or equivocation, and has its ground of reason perfectly clear. For what is 
it? Not the convenient latitude of two unconnected senses, wide of each other, and 
giving room to a fallacious ambiguity ; but the combination of two related, analogous, 
and harmonizing, though disparate subjects, each clear and definite in itself; implying 
a two-fold truth in the prescience, and creating an aggravated difficulty, and thereby 
an accumulated proof in the completion.”—Davison, Discourses on Prophecy, p. 195. 
In his application of this important principle, Mr. Davison appears to me to exhibit 
too great caution when he observes: “I would understand the double sense to ob- 
tain only in some of the more distinguished monuments of Prophecy.”—p. 198. Ols- 
hausen seems to have had a more just apprehension of its applicability. Equally 
cautious with Mr. Davison, he guards against the abuse of this principle of the 
‘double sense,’ by refusing to accept any interpretation of Scripture which the words 
of Scripture do not justify :—“ This is to be laid down, in the first instance, as the rule 
of every system of exposition, that Scripture has no other meaning in addition to 
the simple meaning of its own words; but yet wnder this it again has the same, only 
lying somewhat more deeply. * * * A firm, necessary connexion must always 
be maintained between the literal sense of the words, and the more profound import 
of this verbal sense.”—Hin Wort, &c. s. 90. This pregnant sense of the language of 
Prophecy has been clearly pointed out by Bacon: ‘Secunda pars [ Histcrize Ecclesias- 
ticze] quee est historia ad prophetias, ex duobis relativis constat; prophetia ipsa, et 
ejus adimpletione * * * atque licet plenitudo et fastigium complementi eorum 
[vaticiniorum] plerumque alicui certze setati vel etiam certo momento destinetur ; at- 
tamen habent interim gradus nonnullos et scalas complementi, per diversas mundi 
zetates.".—De Augm. Scient. lib. 1. c. xi. The importance of giving due weight to the 
comprehensive signification of the language of Scripture will be shown more fully in 
Lecture vii, Meanwhile I may refer to a remarkable illustration already given, Lec- 
ture iii. p 109, note’. 

? Tsai. lii.; Jer. xxxi. “In like manner the prophecy of the judicial destruction 
of Jerusalem with the dissolution of the Jewish Economy, symbolizes with that which 
relates to the final judgment, which will shut up the whole temporal Economy of God 
at the end of the world. In the New Testament they are united.”—Davison, Dis 
courses, p. 199. 

* Tbid. p. 198. It may be well to observe here, that the whole system ot Types 
to which the Bible attaches so much importance, affords an obvious illustration of 
the donble sense’ of prophecy. See on this subject Lecture v. infra. 


154 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION, [LECT. IV 


What we know respecting the occasional composition of the 
several books of the New Testament, supplies a striking analogy 
to that ‘ Law’ of Prophecy to which I have now drawn attention, 
The external occasions which have called forth the successive com- 
ponents of the New Testament, are precisely parallel to the histo- 
rical events to which particular predictions have been annexed ; 
and may, in this light, be regarded as the providential element, 
by which the free agency of the sacred writers was brought under 
the guidance of Inspiration, The Epistles of 8. Paul to the Co- 
rinthians, for example, were called forth by certain events in one 
of the churches which he had planted. This was confessedly 
their primary intent. And yet such was the occasion made use 
of by the Holy Ghost for the purpose of conveying Divine in- 
struction to the remotest futurity.’ 

Before entering upon an examination of the particular facts 
by which, as I have said, the ‘dynamical’ theory of Inspiration 
may be proved, it is necessary to consider the nature of the Pro- 
phetic Office. 

The great doctrine of Monotheism formed the essence of the 
Patriarchal Creed ; and presented, as taught by Moses, the lead- 
ing idea of the Jewish nation. On Sinai was announced from 
heaven the complete polity of Israel, according to which the peo- 
ple were to acknowledge Jehovah as their invisible Lord and King. 
The duty of the Hebrew as a citizen thus became equivalent to 
his religious duty ;—each particular of his life being referred to 
his duty to God. In the words of the Prophet—‘‘ Jehoveh was 


1 We learn from a passage in Tertullian’s controversy with Marcion, that the 
Church has, from the first, recognised the principle that the external occasion of each 
inspired document is altogether subordinate to its destination for the future: ‘“ Ke- 
clesize quidem veritate epistolam istam ad Ephesios habemus emissam, non ad Lao- 
dicenos; sed Marcion ei titulum aliquando interpolare gestiit, quasi et in isto diligens 
tissimus explorator. Nihil autem de titulis interest, cwm ad omnes Apostolus scripserit 
dum ad quosdam.”—Adv. Marcion, v. 17, Ὁ. 607. So also in the Fragment preserved 
by Muratori (see supra, Lecture ii. p. 57, note *), we read: “Cum ipse beatus Aposto- 
lus Paulus sequens praedecessoris sui Johannis ordinem, nonnisi nominatim septem 
Ecclesiis scribat. * * * Et Johannes enim in Apocalypsi licet septem Kcclesiis 
scribat, TAMEN OMNIBUS DICIT.”—ap. Routh, Relig Sacre. t.i. p. 395. Of this pats- 
age Credner, having remarked that S. John is called the “praedecessor” of S. Paul 
with reference to Gal. i. 17 (οἱ πρὸ ἐμοῦ ᾿Απόστολοι)---ρῖν88 the following paraphrase : 
“ Although Paul has directed Epistles to seven churches defined by name, still these 
writings possess a value not merely local, but rather universal; just as the Revela- 
tion of John addressed, in the first instance, to seven churches has a universal value. 
This comparison is rendered a demonstration by the fact that in the Revelation itself 
(ch. ii. 23), what is said to the Seven Churches is extended to all, by the words: καὶ 
γνώσοντα' πᾶσαι αἱ éxkAecia.”—Zur Geschichte des Canons, 8. 86. 


LECT. Iv.] REVELATION AND INSPIRATION, 155 


their Judge, Jehovah was their Lawgiver, Jehovah was their 
King.”* This conception received from Josephus the appropriate 
appellation of the ‘‘ Theocracy.”” In it consisted the germ of 
that future Kingdom of God, the erection of which was the great 
end of the former Covenant. In the different features of the 
Theocracy can be traced the outline of that agency which has 
been ordained by the Divine decree for the Redemption of man- 
kind. Here were displayed the preparations for, and the types 
of, that Church of Christ to be founded in “ the latter days,” and 
unto which all nations are yet to flow ;—‘“‘ which stretches out 
her boughs unto the sea, and her branches unto the river ;’—of 
which “ kings shall be the nursing fathers, and queens the nurs- 
ing mothers ;”—“‘ She that looketh forth as the morning, fair as 
the moon, clear as the son, terrible as an army with banners !’” 
The Theocracy presents two great periods: the one starting 
from Moses, the other taking its rise from Samuel. During the 
former, its chief ministers were the Priests, who, to the end, rep- 
resented one of the most essential elements of the Law. To 
them was intrusted the sacred symbolism of Divine worship, te 
which ever the oral teaching of the Law yielded in importance ;* 
the sacerdotal instruction, throughout the entire course of the 
Theocracy, being a system of teaching by acts. Together with 
the institution of the Sacerdotal Order, the germ of a new min- 
istry—that of the Prophets—was placed by Moses in the Law,’ 


1 Tsai. xxxiii. 22. Cf. 1 Sam. viii. 7; Micah, iv. 7. Cf. on this subject the re- 
marks of Baumgarten Crusius, “ Grundziige der bibl. Theol.,” 5. 35. 

2 Alluding to the various forms of earthly governments, Josephus observes: ὁ δ᾽ 
ἡμέτερος νομοθέτης εἰς μὲν τούτων οὐδοτιοῦν ἀπεῖδεν" ὡς O ἄν τις εἴποι βιασάμενος τὸν 
λόγον, Θεοκρατίαν ἀπέδειξε τὸ πολίτευμα, Θεῷ τὴν ἀρχὴν καὶ τὸ κράτος ἀναθεὶς, 
καὶ πείσας εἰς ἐκεῖνον ἅπαντας ἀφορᾷν ὡς αἴτιον μὲν ἁπάντων ὄντα τῶν ὠγαθῶν.---- Cont 
Apion, τι. Xvi. t. ii. p. 482. 

SP sixexoxc ΠΕ isal xix. 2siCant. vi. 10: 

‘ Hiavernick justly rejects the opinion that the Priests represeut merely the for- 
mal and external side of the Theocracy, while the Prophets exhibit its spiritual ten- 
dency and internal character. The symbolical ordinances ‘ana the oral teaching of 
the Law are placed side by side, in the following commana of the Lord to Aaron: 
“Tt shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations: and that ye may put 
difference between holy and unholy, and between vuclean and clean; and that ye 
may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the Lord hath spoken unto 
them by the hand of Moses.”—Lev. x. 9-11. “ Hinleit.” Th. 11 Abth. ii. 5. 4. 

δ ‘Prophecy belongs rather to the prorsissory side of the Law, than to its com- 
mands. The Prophets are a free gift of Divine Grace, designed to bless the Theocracy 
ΒΒ instruments of Jehovah, and in whora His love for His people finds expression.” 
—Havernick, loc cit. 8. 5. This writer further points out how fully the freedom of the 
Spirit’s influence was exhibited, cven under the Old Covenant, by the fact,—so re- 
markable when Oriental manners are taken into account,—that the exercise of the 


156 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. [LECT. IV. 


although its full development was reserved for a later period. 
That the Spirit of Prophecy was poured out in his days, appears 
not only from the account of the seventy Elders who “ prophesied” 
(as we read in the eleventh chapter of the book of Numbers),’ 
but also from the tests which the Law had already defined for 
distinguishing between true and false prophets.” The age of the 
Judges, towards its close, presents an instance in which the gift 
of Prophecy was conferred even to the fullest extent, in the case 
of the “man of God” who came ‘ unto Eli, and said unto him, 
Thus saith the Lord ;’”* and whose announcements are conceived 
in a form, and expressed in a manner, identical with those of 
subsequent prophets. As time went on, together with the total 
degeneracy of the Priesthood, this dawning light of Prophecy 
was almost quenched in Israel“ Under such circumstances, 
Somuel was called by God, not only to reform the Sacerdotal 
Order, but also to restore Prophecy to its true legal basis, by 


prophetic agency was independent of sex. This is proved by the examples of Miriam 
(Exod. xv. 20), Deborah (Judg. iv. 4)—whose genuinely prophetical song is a sub- 
lime echo of the age of Moses,—and Huldah (2 Kings, xxii. 14); to each of whom 
the official title (see infra, p. 158, note *), of Prophetess—n"53, is applied. Mention 
is also made of the existence. of Prophetesses in the age of the New Testament: e. 
g. Anna (S. Luke, ii. 36), ar Ὁ the daughters of Philip the Evangelist (Acts, xxi. 9). 

1 Moses, filled with a growing sense of his powerlessness to keep the people true to 
their allegiance to God, had said unto the Lord: “1 am not able to bear all this peo- 
ple alone, because it is too heavy forme. * * * And the Lord came down in a 
cloud, and spake unto him, and took of the Spirit that was upon him, and gave it 
unto the seventy Elders: and it came to pass that when the Spirit rested upon them 
they prophesied (1N32™),and did not cease. * * * And there ran a young man, 
and told Moses and said, Eldad and Medad do prophesy in the camp. * * * And 
Moses said unto [Joshua], Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the Lord’s 
people were prophets (0°x°23), and that the Lord would put his Spirit upon them !”— 
vss. 14, 25, 27, 29; which iatter words, observes Hiavernick, ‘‘ express as well an 
earnest longing for the perfection of the Theocracy, as a profound insight into the ese 
sence of the Kingdom of God,—nay more, which contain a prophetic announcement 
of Its glorious future.”—loc. cit. s. 17. 

2 “Tf there arisé among you a prophet (x"22) * * * and the sign or the won- 
der come to pass whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods 
* * > thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet.”—Deut. xiii. 1-3. 
“The prophet (’°227), which shall presume to speak a word in My Name, which I 
have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, 
even that prophet shall die.”—Deut. xviii. 20. These preparatory ordinances point- 
ing to the institution of a Prophetic Order, although the office itself was not as yet 
fully developed, are perfectly analogous to the directions which related to the future 
introduction of kingly rule: 6. g. ‘ And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne 
of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this Law in a book,” &c.—Deut. 
>.Qylly iS): 

3 Sam. ii. 27-36. 

4 The influence of the Spirit of God was, however, still exerted, although in a 
lower and far different manner, in the persons of the Judges, by whom, during this 
interval, the Theocracy was administered. E. g. “The Spirit of the Lord came upon 
Gideo 1.”— Judges, vi. 34 ; “‘ upon Jephthah,”—xi, 29; upon Samson, xv. 14, & da 


LECT. Iv.] REVELATION AND INSPIRATION, 157 


proving that the guidance of the people must rest upon an in- 
ward religious life. His function was not, as has been erroneously 
maintained, to create anew, but simply to re-organize ;* and the 
sacred history informs us of his success. The child Samuel saw 
a time ‘‘ when the word of the Lord was precious,” when there 
was “‘no open vision :’”*—the man Samuel beheld around him a 
host of prophets, who, together with him, served Jehovah, sang 
His praises, received His revelations, and proclaimed His Name.‘ 
In the interval between Moses and Samuel, the official title of 
the Prophetic Order, (Nabi),* together with the office itself, had 


Δ “As the whole tendency of Samuel’s labors,” observes Hivernick, ‘‘can only 
be understood by looking constantly to the Law,—as he is to be accounted merely 
the Theocratic Reformer, not the founder of Theocracy—such is also his relation to 
Prophecy.”—loc. cit. s. 18. Indeed Samuel’s entire life was, as it were, a reflection 
of that of Moses ; and hence he is referred to in Scripture as a second Law-giver: 
“Then said the Lord unto me, Though Moses and Samuel stood before Me.”—Jer. 
xv. 1. And again: “ Moses and Aaron among His Priests, and Samuel among them 
that call upon His name.”—Ps. xcix. 6. Although no information on the subject is 
given in 1 Sam. i., we learn from 1 Chron. vi. 22-28, that Samuel was of the tribe of 
Levi, and the family of Kohath; while we can infer that he performed the functions 
of a Priest from 1 Sam, vii. 9. (See Winer, ‘Real Worterb.” Art. ‘Samuel.’) He 
was not High Priest, Eli having been the last individual who filled at once the 
highest ecclesiastical and civil offices. 

gole Same 1118} Le 

° The system of Revelation is most plainly exhibited by a review of the periods 
which start from Moses and Samuel respectively. I have already alluded (Lecture i. pp. 
23, 24.) to the distinction which exists between God’s revelations by Act, and by Word; 
i. 6. between the manifestation of His power over the material universe, and the proofs 
of His omniscience by the mouth of His prophets. The former is chiefly attested in 
that series of sublime acts of Omnipotence, displayed during the space of time which 
elapsed from the Exodus to the conquest of Canaan :—for, although in the Patriarchal 
age also, there were exhibited proofs of miraculous power, they were comparatively 
few and far between. “This relative withdrawal of miracles in the history of the 
Patriarchs,” observes Sack, “is an incomparable proof of the historic truth and the 
Divine nature of the Patriarchal Revelation. What opportunities has a mythico- 
poetical narrative here let slip!”—Apologetik, s. 114. After the possession of Canaan 
was secured, displays of miraculous power appear to have been gradually withdrawn ; 
and the course of Revelation was now marked by the series of prophetic announces 
ments which signalized the period from Samuel to Malachi. We must, however, bear 
in mind that, as in the Divine economy in general there are no abrupt transitions, so 
here, too, each of these phases of Revelation fades away into the other. In the age 
of Moses there were displays of omniscience; in the Prophetic period there were ex- 
hibitions of mraculous power. After Malachi there was indeed, for a considerable 
time, a cessation from such supernatural revelations ; but this was merely the prelude 
to the advent of the Divine Revealer Himself, in whom both phases were united. C£ 
K6ppen, ‘‘ Die Bibel ein Werk der gottl. Weisheit.” B. ii. s. 100. 

* The earliest occasion on which the word Nabi is used in Scripture, is when God 
commands Abimelech to restore Sarah to Abraham, adding: “He is a Prophet 
{877 Ν 32:3) and he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live."—Gen. xx. 7. ‘Here 
Abraham is so called, for the Patriarch combined in his person the kingly, the sacer- 
dotal, and the prophetical office.”-—Hiivernick, Hinleit. Th, 1. Abth. i. 5. 54. Cf Ps. 
cv. 15. During the age of Moses mention is made, as we have seen (p. 156, notes ? 
and 5), of both Prophets and Prophetesses: e.g. “If there be a Prophet (ἈΝ 33) among 
ie {the Lord will make Myself known unto him in a vision,” &.—Num, xii. ὃ, 

t is to be observed that Moses himself is styled Nabiin Hos, xii. 13 [14]. 


158 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. [LECT. Iv, 


fallen into oblivion ; and hence it was said in the days of Samuel : 
“‘ He that is now called a Prophet (Nabi) was beforetime called 
a Seer (Roeh).”’ A regular line of prophets having been formed 
by Samuel, the title, defined by the Law, was restored ; and the 
appellation “‘ Prophet” (Nabi) henceforward denotes the oficial 
character of chosen ministers of the Theocracy, who are distin- 
guished by this title from those other men of God, who possessed, 
indeed, the prophetic g/t, but not the prophetic ofice. The sig- 
nification of the term Nabi may be inferred, not only from its 
admitted etymology,—according to which it implies “a speaker,” 
“one who announces the sayings and revelations of God,’’—but 
also from the explanation given by Jehovah Himself: ‘“‘ The 
Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god (Elohim) to 


1] Sam. ix. 9. There are three distinct Hebrew terms, for which our English 
version gives but these two equivalents: viz. x12) (Nabi, i. e. the official title of the 
chief agent of the Theocracy)—which is translated a Prophet; 4x7 (Roeh), and 7mm 
(Chozeh), which are rendered by the single term ὦ Seer. The question whether any 
or what distinction exists between these three terms has been much discussed. It 
seems plain, however, notwithstanding some apparent exceptions, that they are not 
employed indiscriminately by the sacred writers. EH. g.in 1 Chron. xxix. 29, Samuel 
is styled ‘Roeh;” Nathan. “ Nabi;” and Gad, ‘‘Chozeh ;”—the English version, here 
as elsewhere, making no distinction between Roeh and Chozeh. The conclusion at 
which I have arrived, and which in some respects differs, so far as I am aware, 
from any which has been hitherto suggested, is that Nabi and Roeh are equivalent 
in their meaning—as, indeed, the text 1 Sam. ix. 9, of itself intimates; each denoting 
the official minister of the Theocracy, and Roeh being merely the archaic form of 
expression. Chozeh, on the other hand, is the general title applied to any agent of 
God to whom revelations were occasionally made; and to whom, on certain exigen- 
cies, Divine communications were vouchsafed. According to this view every “ Nabi” 
could receive the title ‘“‘Chozeb,” but not conversely. But on this question see 
Appendix J. 

I may add, that the LXX. invariably render x.22 by προφήτης (or ψευδοπροφήτης, 
e. ρ΄. Jer. vi. 13); and that they make no distinction between Tx7 and Mn (see 1 
Chron. xxix. 29, where both terms are rendered βλέπων), translating in numerous 
places by ὁρῶν, BAérwv, and προφήτης indifferently: see 2 Sam. xxiv. 11; 1 Chron. 
xxvi. 28. This general use of προφήτης to denote all classes of God’s messengers, 
is further exhibited by the writings of Philo and Josephus. See Lecture ii. p. 65, 
ἄς. The term προφήτης, Eusebius observes, is derived mapd τὸ Tpogaivety καὶ 
προφωτίζειν ἐν αὐτοῖς τὸ Θεῖον Πνεῦμα, μὴ μόνον τὰ παρόντα, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν 
μελλόντων ἀληθῆ καὶ ἀκριβῆ yvoow.—Demons. Evang., lib. v. p. 209, ed. Paris. On 
the other hand, S. Isidore of Seville observes: ‘“‘Quos gentilitas vates appellat, hos 
nostri prophetas vocant, quasi preefantores, quia porro fantur, et de futuris vera pre- 
dicunt.”—EHtymolog., lib. V1. ¢. vill. p. 60. 

? Both Knobel (‘Der Prophetismus der Hebraer,” Th. 1, s. 137) and Havernick 
explain x22 (which is found only in Niphal and Hithp.) to mean “to stream -orth,” 
“to gush forth from a source,” after the analogy of 933, scaturivit. Cf. pa2 3m, ‘a 
stream gushing out,” or “flowing brook.”—Prov. xviil. 4. Hence, by a transition not 
unusual, it is transferred to the flow of words; see Ps. lxxviii. 2. Compare the 
manner in which 9,07 (which literally signifies stil/avit), is used to express the idea 
of prophesying ;—see Micah, ii. 6, and cf. Ezek. xxi. 2. The trope cannot be better 
expressed than by the words: “ My doctrine shall drop as the rain, My speech shal 
distil as the dew.’—Deut. xxxii. 2. 


LECT, Iv. ] REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. 159 


Pharaoh : and Aaron .hy brother shall be thy prophet (Nabi ;)” 
the Lord having previously announced to Moses,—Aaron ‘shall 
be thy spokesman to the people : and he shall be to thee instead 
of a mouth: and thou shalt be to him instead of God.”’ And 
thus the official Prophet was, above all others, God’s spokesman 
to the people ; the mouth, as it were, by which Jehovah uttered 
His commands. 

Closely connected with the organization of the Prophetic Or- 
der, was the institution of those Societies or Schools established 
by Samuel at Ramah, Bethel, Gibea, Jericho, and Gilgal ; the 
members of which were called ‘“ prophets,” or ‘‘ sons of the proph- 
ets,” indifferently.” Over these Societies the leading prophets of 


τ Exod. vii. 1; Exod. iv. 16 (‘and he shall be thy spokesman”—7> nun-727)). 
Knobel observes that Onkelos has rendered 723 (‘‘ prophet”) in the former of these 
passages, as well as 5 (‘‘ mouth”) in the latter, by the word a371N72 interpres.—Ibid. 
Th. i. s. 104. In this sense Jehovah promises Jeremiah: ‘If thou take forth the 
precious from the vile, thou shalt be as My mouth’”—Jer. xv. 19; and also declares 
respecting ‘the Prophet like unto Moses’—“ I will put My words in his mouth.”— 
Deut. xviii. 18. 

21 Sam. x. 5, 10); xix. 20; 2 Kings! i. 3, 5: iv. 38. Cf. too, 2) Kings) xxi. 14) 
and 2 Chron. xxxiv. 22, where it is said of ‘‘ Huldah the Prophetess” that “she dwelt 
in Jerusalem, in the College,” ("2w72, which the Chaldee paraphrast renders domus 
doctrine, and Kimchi a school—see “Select Discourses” by John Smith, of Cambridge, 
“On Prophecy,” ch. ix.) Héavernick thinks that Samuel did not appoint any fixed 
constitution of these assemblies, merely because we do not meet the phrase “Sons 
of the Prophets” until after his death: during his lifetime they were called ‘‘the com- 
pany (53m, 4pm) of the Prophets.” That their number was considerable, may be in- 
ferred from the fact that Ahab on one occasion ‘‘ gathered the prophets together about 
four hundred men”—1 Kings, xxii. 6; and that in Jezebel’s persecution ‘Obadiah 
took an hundred prophets and hid them by fifty in a cave.”—1 Kings, xviii. 4. See 
Knobel, “‘ Der Proph. der Hebrier,” Th. ii. 5. 39 ff. Over these Schools, as I have 
said, one of the leading prophets of the age usually presided. Thus Saul’s messen- 
gers ‘“‘saw the company of the prophets prophesying, and Samuel standing as ap- 
pointed over them’”—1 Sam. xix. 20: so also, when Elisha came again to Gilgal 
* * * the sons of the prophets were sitting before him”—2 Kings, iv. 38. Hence 
the title “Sons or pupils of the Prophets.” That such was the origin of the phrase is 
evident from the question asked, on one occasion, respecting them: “ But who is 
their father?”—1 Sam. x.12. In this sense, too, Elisha addressed Elijah when taken 
from him to heaven: “ My father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen 
thereof.” —2 Kings, ii. 12. See J. Smith, loc. cit. They were also sometimes called 
simply prophets :—as we learn from 1 Kings, xx., where the person who, at ver. 35, 
is described as ‘‘a certain man of the sons of the prophets,” is named at ver. 38 ‘the 
prophet ;” see also 2 Kings, ix. 1, 4:—in both of which cases we observe that the in- 
dividual named executed a Divine commission. Indeed we can infer that Divine 
revelations were at times made to these assemblies collectively: 6. g. ‘The sons 
of the prophets that were at Bethel came forth to Elisha and said unto him, Knowest 
thou that the Lord will take away thy master from thy head to-day ?”—2 Kings, ii. 
3,5. Tlat “the Master” or chief Prophet was always regularly instituted in his 
functions, we may, perhaps, conclude from the command of God to Elijah: ‘“ Elisha, 
the son of Shaphat of Abelmeholah, shalt thou anoint to be Prophet in thy room,”— 
1 Kings, xix. 16. From these Societies the selection of the leading prophets was ors 
dinarily made. “ Klisha himself was trained up by Elijah as his disciple [see 6. g. i 
Kings, xix. 21, ‘Then Elisha arose, and went after Elijah. and ministered unto him ;’ 
and also 2 Kings, ix. 1] and therefore in 2 Kings, ili. 11, it was thought a reason 


160 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. [LECT. Iv. 


the age presided ; and the course of instruction imparted i in them 
appears to have embraced the following subjects : music,W—which 
so far back as the time of Moses formed an important feature of 
Divine worship; the composition of lyrical poetry,—the connex- 
ion of which with Prophecy is shown by the predictions of Ba- 
laam, and the songs interwoven in the writings of Isaiah (both 
instances exhibiting how closely Prophecy bordered upon sacred 
lyrics ;)* and above all, as we may safely conclude froma the char- 


good enough to prove that he was a prophet, for that he had been Elijah’s disciple, 
and ‘poured water upon his hands,’ as all the Jewish scholastics observe. * * * 
And hence it was that Amos urgeth the extraordinariness of his commission from 
God: ‘I was no prophet, nor was I a prophet’s son’ (Amos, vii. 14)—‘ He was not 
prepared for Prophecy, or trained up so as to be fitted for a prophetical function by 
his discipleship,’ as Abarbanel glosseth upon the place. And therefore Divine Inspi- 
ration found him out of the ordinary road of Prophets, among his herds of cattle.” 
—J. Smith, loc. cit. 

? Carpzovius observes: —‘ Notamus eam [musicam] partim ad prophetarum exer- 
citia, et munia, partim ad dispositiones pertinere eorum qui huic se muneri destina- 
bant.”—Jntrod., § ix. p. 21. The most obvious proof of the latter fact here adverted 
to, is afforded by the case of Elisha when solicited to declare the Lord’s will to King 
Jehoram: “And Elisha said, As the Lord of Hosts liveth * * * surely were it 
not that I regard the presence of Jehoshaphat the King of Judah, I would not look to- 
ward thee, nor see thee. But now bring me a minstrel. And it came to pass, when 
the minstrel played, that the hand of the Lord came upon him. And he said, Thus 
saith the Lord” &c.—2 Kings, iii. 14-16. The relation of music to the functions of 
a prophet, may be noticed so early as the age of Moses:—“ Then sang Moses and 
the children of Israel this song unto the Lord. * * * And Miriam the proph- 
etess * * * took a timbrel in her hand,” &c.—Exod. xv. 1, 20. Cf. Judges, iv. 
4; ν. 1. The intimate connexion of music with the prophetical office, and of both 
with “he service of the Temple, we learn from 1 Chron. xxv. 1, where David “ separ 
ated to the service of the sons of Asaph, ὅσο. who should prophesy (0°N7237) with 
harps, with psalteries, and with cymbals.” The word mx3275, too.—which must be 
rendered ‘to the chief musician,” and which stands at the head of fifty-three Psalms, 
affords a proof that the Psalms, in the superscription of which it occurs, were intended 
for public use in the Temple. Compare Hab. iii. 19, where the prophet manifestly 
imitates the superscription of the Psalms: “ the words (2.153 ΓΙ 9720), with which the 
song of the Church is there closed, can be no otherwise explained than as meaning, ‘to 
the chief musician upon my (Israel’s, for it is the Church that speaks through the 
whole chapter) stringed instrument,’ assigned to the chief musician, that he might 
publicly sing it with the accompaniment of sacred music in the Temple.”—Hengsten- 
berg, Comm. on Ps, iv. (Clarke’s For. Theol. Lib.,"i. p. 57.) While considering the Di- 
vine institution of the musical element of the Temple worship, we must not forget 
the external qualifications which Moses possessed, in consequence of his Hgyptian 
education. C. F. Keil, in his continuation of Hiavernick’s ‘“ Hinleitung,” (s. 6) calls 
attention to the words of Philo, in which he enumerates the human acquirements of 
Moses: * * * τήν τε ῥυθμικὴν καὶ ἁρμονικὴν καὶ μετρικὴν θεωριών, καὶ μουσικὴν 
τὴν σύμπασαν, διά τε χρήσεως ὀργάνων * * * Αἰγυπτίων οἱ λόγιοι παρέδοσαν---- 
De Vita Mosis, τ. t. ii. p. 84,—a statement which is quoted by Clemens Alex., Strom. 
i, p. 413. It is to be observed, moreover, that not the sacred music alone, but every- 
thing relating to the worship of Jehovah, was the result of Divine command: “ And 
the Lord spake unto Moses saying, See I have called by name Bezaleel * * * 
and I have filled him with the Spirit of God * * * to devise cunning works, to 
work in gold,” &e.—Exod, xxxi, 1-4. 

* By sacred lyrical poetry is meant songs of praise and thanksgiving to Jehovah, 
as distinguished from those poetical compositions which are stamped with the strictly 
prophetical character. The song of the children of Israel, after the passage of the 


LECT. Iv.] REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. 161 


acter of the founder, Samuel,—the Divine ordinances of the Law, 
and the spirit of the Theocracy. This necessity of systematic 
education, in order to qualify men to become spokesmen of God, 
is in every respect analogous to that course of instruction and 
experience, and personal companionship with their Master, which 
was required under the New Testament by the Apostles, before 


Red Sea (Ex. xy.), is an example of the former; the Messianic Psalms, of the latter. 
That the lyrical poetry of Israel, like all the other features of the Theocracy, must 
be traced to a Divine source, is proved by Keil in the work referred to in the last 
note. The attempt to trace its origin in the warlike spirit of the people, is utterly 
without support. Of such songs as must, if this theory were correct, have been pro- 
duced in the earlier times, we know absolutely nothing. Neither the ‘“‘ Book of the 
wars of Jehovah” (Numb. xxi. 14), nor the war song of Deborah (Judges, v.) form 
exceptions,—for the genuine Theocratic character is stamped upon both. In the 
history of the Hebrews there eccurs no such “ Heroic Age,” to which the origin of 
the poetic art can be ascribed. The poetry of Israel was most cupious in those times 
when religion had the greatest power over the popular mind; not in those periods 
when war was the leading tendency, as during the rule of the Judges. In short, 
there is no historical foundation for such an opinion: it rests upon a perfectly de- 
fective view of the true characteristics of Hebrew poetry. “If, with the Hebrews, 
Religion is related to Poetry as cause to effect, it is clear that even the historical for- 
mation of their poetry must be connected, in the most intimate manner, with the 
entire course of development of the Theocracy. The sacred lyrics, consequently, re- 
ceived their condition wholly from the revelations of God in word and act, so that 
they are to be regarded as the corresponding echo of the faithful community.”—Keil, 
loc. cit. 8. 5. The song of Moses (Exod. xv.) is a poetic piece in a highly cultivated 
form, and Ps. xe. is also ascribed to him in its superscription. That in his age the 
arrangements of public worship required a liturgical use of such songs, is placed be- 
yond any doubt by Numb. x. 35, 36 (cf. Ps. lxviii, 1;) nor was this species of in- 
spired poetry ever discontinued (see Judges, v; 1 Sam. ii. 1-10, which pieces have 
the greatest community with Hx. xv.) We have also to notice another species of 
versification of a less formal nature, and more akin to the original character of poetry- 
It is characterized by the name of the poets—o>w7an, ‘they that speak in proverbs’? 
—Numb. xxi. 27, of which class of sayings that chapter affords a remarkable ex- 
ample (ver. 27-30 :) such are also the adages or “ parables” of Balaam (Numb. xxiv. 
3). (In proof of Balaam’s inspiration see Lecture v.) 

We must remember, however, that all Hebrew poetry was not inspired. Although 
it is said of Solomon that ‘‘ his songs were a thousand and five” (1 Kings, iv. 32), yet 
only two of his poetical compositions stand in the Canon (Ps. Ixxii. and exxyii.) 
From the age of Solomon, to the opening of the Chaldean catastrophe, we possess 
(in addition to some Psalms of Asaph and the sons of Korah, from the times of Je- 
hoshaphat and the Assyrian invasion,)—the song of Jonah (ch. ii.), of Hezekiah (Isai. 
Xxxviii. 10, &c.), and some hymns interwoven in the prophecies of Isaiah (cb. xii. 
and xxvi.) To these prophetical songs belongs the hymn of Habakkuk (ch. iii.), 
which in part relates to Ps. lxxvii.; and which repeats in lyrical form the impression 
produced by the revelation which the prophet had received. Bishop Lowth observes: 
—‘ It is sufficiently evident that the Prophetic Office had a most strict connexion 
with the poetic art. They had one common name, one common origin, one com- 
mon author,—the Holy Spirit. Those, in particular, were called to the exercise 
of the Prophetic Office who were previously conversant with the sacred poetry. 
It was equally a part of their duty to compose verses for the service of the Chureh, 
and to declare the oracles of God: it cannot, therefore, be doubted that a great por- 
tion of the sacred hymns may properly be termed prophecies, or that many of the 
prophecies are in reality hymns, * * * Of this we have an illustrious proof in 
that prophetic ode of Moses (Deut. xxxii.) which he composed by the especial com- 
mand of God, to be learned by the Israelites." —The Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews 
Lect. xviii. (Gregory’s transl., vol. ii. p. 18). 


11 


162 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION, [LECT. IV 


they could enter upon their peculiar functions. That such pre- 
paratory discipline was necessary, is proved by the statement of 
S. Peter, that the successor to the Apostleship of Judas should 
be one “who had companied” with the disciples, “‘ beginning 
from the baptism of John :” for to those who were qualified by 
knowledge thus acquired 8. Peter restricts the choice ; declaring 
that from such persons only ‘‘ must one be ordained to be a wit- 
ness” of Christ’s Resurrection.’ The case of 8. Paul, it is true, 
proves, that while this was the ordinary rule of God’s selection, 
certain other agents of the Divine will could be raised up, who 
were not thus qualified by personal experience ;—just as the pre- 
paratory training of a Prophet under the Old Testament might 
be dispensed with. Amos, for example, replied to the cavils of 
Amaziah—“ I was no prophet, neither was I a prophet’s son ; 
but I was an herdman, and a gatherer of sycamore fruit: and 
the Lord took me as I followed the flock, and the Lord said unto 
me, Go, prophesy unto My people Israel.”’ Such cases, however, 
were exceptions : and the ordinary method by which the scheme 
of Revelation was carried on, was the employment of men whose 
education, experience, and natural capacity qualified them to be- 
come ministers of God’s will. 

This remark brings immediately before us the facts to which 
I have adverted above ; or, in other words, the process by which 
the revelations of God have been introduced into the sphere of 
human knowledge. And here, at the outset, I would observe,— 
although after what has been said the caution may appear un- 
necessary,—that we must ever keep in mind, that the internal 
suggestion which prompts his utterance neither proceeds from, 
nor is produced by, the prophet’s natural powers or personal con- 
dition :* it is a mew principle which is infused into his soul, with 


1 Acts, i. 21, 22. See on this point Lecture vi. 

2 Amos, vii. 14. Of ver. 12, where Amaziah calls him “seer” ("1m); see supra, 
p. 159, note *. Hiivernick, (Th. mu. Abth. ii. s. 303 ff.) observes that, in consequence 
of the circumstances which thus marked the call of Amos, we have more,minute in- 
formation concerning his history than is usual in the case of the minor prophets. 
He was “among the herdmen of Tekoa * * * inthe days of Uzziah King of 
Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam, the son of Joash, King of Israel, two years be- 
fore the earthquake.”—Amos, i. 1. 

8 “God reveals Himself externally in the history of the people ; internally in the 
spirit of man by His Spirit: while neither the world nor humanity are brought into 
any false identity with the Divine Being. Thus Hebrew Prophecy, according to its 
subjective starting-point, stands in contrast to all heathen notions, according to which 
the Divine life comes ‘orth in tie multiplicity of the powers of Nature. Prophecy is 
aot, like the heathen Mantik, tizd to the concealed, mysterious, gloomy energies and 


LECT Iv | REVELATION AND INSPIRATION, 163 


an energy transcending all that is human. This fact is completely 
established by the uniformity with which the prophets themselves 
point out one characteristic of every species of Divine revelation. 
They invariably represent their knowledge as proceeding from an 
immediate intuition.’ Such is the obvious sense of the constant 
expressions, “Seer,” ‘“ Vision” All revelations were “seen,” 
or “gazed upon ;” and were, therefore, apprehended by the in- 
ward intelligence instantaneously, and in a manner analogous to 
the reception of impressions by the outward senses. Thus the 
revelations which the prophets received, could be neither the 
mere result of their own power of reflection, nor fictions suggested 


powers of Nature. Hence there is found in genuine Hebraism no divination of many 
different kinds; no uncertain, fluctuating struggle and effort to place one’s self in 
community with the Deity. * * * The essence and subjective peculiarity of 
prophetic inspiration lies in this, that it finds its origin, not in the natural conscious= 
ness of man, nor yet in any eminent natural parts and abilities, but proves itself to 
be the higher supernatural operation of the Spirit of God.”—Hiavernick, Hinlettung, loc. 
cit. 8. 29 ff. The Bible notion of Revelation, says Baumgarten Crusius, proceeds from 
the idea of the guardian God of Israel, and of the union with the people of Him who is 
also Deity of the Universe. With the Greeks and Romans the notion was connected 
with that of Deity in the Universe (in a Pantheistic or Polytheistic sense); or it was re- 
lated (as in the case of Socrates), to a mystic conception of a union with God; or, in 
fine, as denoting something exalted and excellent.— G@rundziige der bibl. Theol, 8. 215. 

1 “The perception of the ‘ word’ which God communicated to the prophets, was 
made by means of the spiritual sense, the apprehension of which is named, in refer- 
ence to the noblest of the natural senses, a seeing. * * * As the Divine idea 
presents itself not mediately through the natural sense, but directly to the spirit of 
the prophet, the notion of seeing is in its proper place.” —Delitzsch, Der Proph. Habak. 
s. 3. (Fairbairn’s “ Ezekiel,” p. 96.) Fience the comprehensive, and significantly 
descriptive terms 1M, JIN, N75, N77, &c. Thus Isaiah “saw the vision concern- 
ing Judah.””—i. 1. Ezekiel “beheld” the vision of “dry bones,”—xxxvii. 8. Micah 
“ saw the word of the Lord concerning Samaria,”—i. 1; and, in like manner, we read 
of “the burden which Habakuk the Prophet did see.”—i. 1. On the word nvm, 
translated “burden” in the passage last quoted, S. Jerome observes: ‘‘ MASSA nun- 
quam prefertur in titulo, nisi quum grave, et ponderis laborisque plenum est quod 
videtur.”— Comment. in Abac. Prol. t. vi. p. 587. And to the same effect, in his Pro- 
logue to Nahum: ‘‘ Asswmptio, quam LXX. interpretantur λῆμμα [they also render by 
ὅραμα, ὅρασις, ῥῆμα,]) et Aquila ἅρμα interpretatus est, apud Hebraos Massa ponitur, 
id est, grave onus: eo quod eam adversus quam videtur premat, nec sinat elevare 
cervicem.”—Jbid. p. 535. On Isai. xiii, 1, see t. iv. p. 169. Hengstenberg ably de- 
fends this interpretation against those moderns (viz., Vitringa, Michaelis, Gesenius, 
&e.) who have revived the notion of the LXX. See his “ Christologie,” ii, s. 102; and 
s. 272, where he proves that the only passage urged in opposition to S. Jerome’s view 
(viz. Zech. xii. 1) does not really militate against it. 

? When §. John says that he “ bare record of the word of God, and of the testi- 
mony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw,’—Rev. i. 2,—the latter words 
clearly signify the Apostle’s prophetic visions. On the passage, “The book of the vision 
(jn 75D) of Nahum the Elkoshite,” &c., Nah. i. 1, Otto Strauss observes: “ Adjectus 
genitivus ym omnino propheticum esse librum ostendit; monemur, describendum hos 
tium interitum nec conspectum oculis esse, nec post eventum enarratum, neque Tae 
tione antea et conjectura nuntiatum, sed animo extrinsecus rapto oblatum per speciem 
et visionem, et sic perceptum literis exinde exaratum.”—Nahwmi de Nino Vaticin., p. 
7. The words, “the book of the vision,” point to the Divine Author; while the ad 
dition of the prophet’s name directs attention to the human agent. 


164 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION, [LECT. IV 


by their own imagination.’ Of this there can be no clearer proof, 
than the plain and unaffected manner in which they intimate, 
that their gift of prophesying was neither permanent, nor the re- 
sult of their own volition, but depending wholly on the Divine 
pleasure. For example, when the Shunamite fell at the feet of 
Elisha, and his servant ‘‘ came near to thrust her away, the man 
of God said, Let her alone ; for her soul is vexed in her, and the 
Lord hath hid it from me, and hath not told me.” In like man- 
ner §. Paul does not scruple to declare—“I go bound in spirit 
unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me 
there.” In short, the men of God were as fully assured of the 
objective reality of the Divine communications, conveyed thus 
immediately to their souls, as we are of the objective reality of 
the world which surrounds us,” 

The revelations conveyed to God’s servants may, speaking 
generally, be reduced to two classes." They were either com- 


| “The prophets feel themselves elevated to a new and higher sphere,—a world liv- 
ing beyond common reality ; in the midst of which they hear the Truth—the voice of 
God. God is Himself the author of such a state: He qualifies the soul of the prophet 
for those intuitions, causes him to ‘see visions,’ ‘opens his ear,’ &c.; and also endows 
the inward organs of his spirit, so that they are capable of attaining to those intui- 
tions (Anschauungen). By means of this Divine starting-point, asthe principle oper- 
ating in the prophets, the prophetic intuitions do not fall into the category of mere 
subjectivity; but lay just claim to be entitled actual states which have an objective 
reality.”’—Havernick, loc. cit., 8. 34. 

2 2 Kings, iv. 27; Acts, xx. 22. Cf also what we read of Jeremiah having ad- 
dressed prayers to God, at the request of his countrymen; promising them that 
“ whatsoever thing the Lord shall answer you, I will declare it unto you.”—xlii, 4. 
Although his prayer was offered at a season of urgent emergency (ef. ch, xli. 17, 
with xlii. 15-19), several days elapse before the prophet receives his answer. “ And 
it came to pass after ten days, that the word of the Lord came unto Jeremiah.”— 
Vases Ue 

3. For some further remarks on this question, see Lecture v. 

4 T have not attempted any formal classification of the various means by which 
revelations have been conveyed to man. Attempts of this nature must to a great 
extent be arbitrary, and inexact; nor is such a classification at all essential to the 
present subject. I may, however, adduce that which has been given by &. Isidore 
of Seville (circ. A.D. 595)—‘ Prophetize autem genera sunt septem, Primum genus, 
Ecstasis, qaod est mentis excessus: sicut vidit Petrus vas illud submissum de ccelo, 
in stupore mentis, cum variis animalibus. Secundum genus, Visio: sicut apud Hsaiam 
dicentem, ‘ Vidi Dominum sedentem,’ &c. (cap. vi.). Tertium genus, Somnium: sicut 
Jacob subnixam in ccelum scalam dormiens vidit. Quartum genus, per Nubem : sicut ad 
Moysem et ad Job post piagam loquitur Deus. Quintum genus, Vow de celo: sicut 
ad Abraham sonuit dicens: ‘Ne injicias manum tuam super puerum ;’ et ad Saulum 
in via: ‘Saule, Saule, quid Me persequeris ?’? Sextum genus, Accepta parabola: sicut 
apud Salomonem in Proverbiis, et apud Balaam cum evocaretur a Balac. Septimus 
genus, Repletio Sancti Spiritus : sicut pene omnes Prophetas.”—Etymolog. lib. VII. 6. 
viii. p. 61. S. Isidore adds: ‘ Alii tria genera visionum esse dixerunt.” I. ‘‘ Secun- 
dum oculos corporis,”"—(as Abraham saw the three men under the oak at Mamre). 
Il. “Secundum spiritum, quo imaginamur ea, que per corpus sentimus,’—(as S. 

Peter’s vision, Acts, x.) III. ‘‘ Quod, neque corporeis sensibus, neque ulla parte ani 


LECT. Iv.] REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. 165 


munications made when the action of the external senses was 
suspended, and there was no consciousness of passing events ; 
or they were communications made in the natural waking state, 
when the prophet was conscious of all that took place around 
him.’ This division, to some extent, corresponds with that in- 
timated in the words of 8. Paul—‘‘I will come to visions and 
revelations of the Lord : ἢ where the term Visions implies that 
certain ideas had been imparted by means of an image, while by 
Revelations is denoted an unfigurative communication from the 
Divine to the human spirit.” Of these classes both may be, and 
often are, united, but always so that one or other predominates : 
here, however, we are chiefly concerned with the former, in which 
the action of the outward senses was suspended, and in which 
state the human soul, like a pure mirror undimmed by any cloud 
of earth, received and reflected the beams of Divine Truth which 
were presented to it.* This class comprises but two species of 
revelations,—revelations by Dreams, and revelations by Hestatic 
Visions ; which channels of the Divine communications seem to 
differ principally in this, that in Hcstasy the activity of the men- 


mze qua corporalium rerum imagines capiuntur: sed per intuitum mentis, quo intel: 
lecta conspicitur veritas: sicut Daniel, hoc preeditus, mente vidit, quod Balthasat 
viderat corpore.” For the distinctions of the medizeval Jews, see Appendix Ὁ. 

1S. Thomas Aquinas discusses this subject with his usual acuteness. Considers 
ing the question “ De modo propheticz cognitionis,”—he observes: ‘‘ Prophetica Re- 
yelatio fit secundum quatuor, scil. secundum influxum intelligibilis luminis ; secundum 
immissionem intelligibilium specierum; secundum impressionem, vel ordinationem 
imaginabilium formarum; et secundum expressionem formarum sensibilium. Mani- 
festum est autem quod non fit abstractio a sensibus, quando aliquid repreesentatur 
menti prophetee per species sensibiles, sive ad hoc specialiter formatas divinitus, sicut 
rubus ostensus Moysi (Ex. iii.) * * * Similiter etiam non est necesse ut fiat 
alienatio a sensibus exterioribus per hoc quod mens Prophetee illustratur intelligibili 
lumine, aut formatur intelligibilibus speciebus. * * * Sed quando fit revelatio 
prophetica secundum formas imaginarias, necesse est fieri abstractionem a sensibus, 
ut talis apparitio phantasmatum non referatur ad ea que exterius sentiuntur.”— 
Summ. Theol. 2da 2dee, qu. elxxiii. art. 3. t. xxiii. p. 307. 

2 2 Cor. xii. 1, ἐλεύσομαι yap εἰς ὀπτασίας Kai ἀποκαλύψεις Κυρίου. The verb 
ἁρπάζεσθαι (‘caught up,” ver. 2) points out the ecstatic condition, in which the 
vision was accompanied by impressions upon the sense of hearing—jKxovoev ἄῤῥητα 
ῥήματα (ver. 4). 

® Thus Hiivernick distinguishes between ‘Prophecy,’ and ‘ Vision’ understood in 
the strict sense of the word. In the former, Divine truth is represented to the 
Prophet’s mind in a more simple, spiritual, and unveiled manner; in the latter, in a 
more concrete manner, under the veil of symbols. Modern writers, overlooking the 
fact, already adverted to (p. 164, note *),—viz. that the notion of Intwition (Anschau- 
ung) is esseutial to all kinds of Prophecy, have applied it solely to Visions, which 
are but a particular species of Intuition. See his “ Kinleitung,” Th. 11. Abth. ii. 5. 39. 

4 Πῶς προεφήτευον ai καθαραὶ καὶ διαυγεῖς ψυχάι; οἱονεὶ κάτοπτρα γινόμενσ. τῆς 
δείας ἐιεργεΐας, τὴν ἔμφασιν ῥανὴν καὶ ἀσύγχυτον, καὶ οὐδὲν ἐπιθολουμένην ἐκ τῶν 
παθῶν τῆς σαρκὸς ἐπεδείκνυντο. πᾶσι μὲν yao πάρεστι τὸ Ἅγιον Uvetua.—S. Basil 
Comm. in Esai. Procem. § 3, t. i. p. 379. 


166 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. [LECT. IV 


tal faculties was called into exercise. We meet with Dreams in 
the case of Jacob, Solomon, Daniel, and others in the Old Testa- 
ment; in the case of Joseph in the New.’ In all such instances 
we see how one of the most ordinary of natural facts was made 
use of, as the means of conveying a revelation ; and how the 
action of the senses was suspended by purely natural causes. In 
the state of Ecstasy,—itself also to be met with, although more 
rarely, in the department of natural facts,—the suspension of 
certain faculties was produced, either by the sublime and over- 
powering character of the conceptions infused into the mind, or 
by the direct operation of the Divine energy, or by both causes 
conjoined.” A striking example of the ecstatic condition is sup- 
plied by the trance of 8. Peter, recorded in the Acts of the 
Apostles ; which at the same time affords a complete proof of 
how the natural condition and circumstances of the person who 


? Gen. xxviii.; 1 Kings, iii. 5; Dan. vii. 1; S. Matt. i. 20; ii. 19:—-see supra, 
Lecture iii. p.114. S. Thomas Aquinas excellently observes, with reference to Divine 
communications of this class:—‘ Si cui fiat divinitus repreesentatio aliquarum rerum 
per similitudines imaginarias (ut Pharaoni,.et Nabuchodonosor), aut etiam per simili- 
tudines corporales (ut Balthassar), non est talis censendus Propheta, nisi illuminetur 
ejus mens ad judicandum.”—loc. cit. art. 2. Cf. what has been already said, p. 145, 
and Lecture i. p. 42, as to the necessity of Inspiration even in cases where a revela- 
tion had been received. For further instances in which men, who were not Divine 
agents, in the sense in which Prophets are to be considered as such, have received 
intimations from God in dreams, cf. Geu. xx. 6 (Abimelech); xxxi. 24 (Laban); xl. 5 
(Pharaoh’s Butler and Baker); Judges, vii. 13 (the Jewish soldier). 

* Scripture affords some information as to the personal state of the prophet while 
in the ecstatie condition, and which may be exemplified by the case of Daniel. (1.) He 
is overpowered by the Divine influence: ‘‘ Now as he was speaking with me, I was 
in a deep sleep ("7n72772) ov. my face toward the ground’—Dan. viii. 18. (2.) He is 
next raised to the state of spiritual intuition: ‘‘He touched me, and set me up- 
right.”—ibid. (3.) The revelation is now communicated: “And he said, Behold I 
will make thee know what shall be in the last end,” &c.—ver. 19, ἄορ (4.) To this 
zondition of spiritual excitement succeeds a state of bodily exhaustion: “And I 
Daniel fainted, and was sick certain days.”—ver. 27. See also Dan. x. 7-21: “1 re- 
tained no strength, yet heard I the voice of his words * * * then was I in a deep 
sleep (0172) on my face * * * and behold an hand touched me, which set me 
upon my knees,” ete. The account of the Transfiguration presents a remarkable 
analogy: ‘‘ While he [S. Peter] yet spake, behold a bright cloud overshadowed thei: 
and behold a voice out of the cloud * * * and when the disciples heard it they 
fell on their face * * * and Jesus came and touched them,” etc.—S. Matt. xvii. 
5-7: cf. Rev. i. 17. In all such instances the touch of the hand acted restoratively in 
the case of those who had been overpowered by the sight of the Divine glory (cf. Ezek. 
iii, 23, &c.: see also Lecture iii. p. 129, &c). The suppression of the external senses 
is referred to more expressly in Gen. xy. 12: ‘And when the sun was going down, 
a deep sleep fell upon Abraham.” On the term here employed (and also, as we have 
seen, in Dan. viii. 18; x. 9), Feurstius in his Concordance (p. 1043) observes: 
“=a7>n—Somnus gravior et profundior, sive natu.alis sive supernaturalis, e quo non 
facile homo expergefieri potest, a v. D77=077, vi dormiendi, non obturandi 8, obstru- 
endi, uti nonnulli finxere. LXX. θώμβος, ἔκστασις, κατάνυξις, φόβος. A. καταφορώ- 
& κάρος. Th. ἔκστασις. Gen. ii. 21. Job, iv. 13; xxxiii. 15. Prov. xix. 15. Isai 
xxix. 10. Gen. xv. 12. 1 Sam. xxvi. 12.” 


LEC. Iv.] REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. 167 


received this species of revelation, were employed by the AI- 
mighty to furnish the form under which His communications 
were conveyed. 8, Peter, we are told, “ went up upon the house- 
top to pray, about the sixth hour: and he became very hungry, 
and would have eaten; but while they made ready, he fell into 
a trance.’ We all know the nature of the vision then presented 
to his mind’s view ; and how the momentous revelation which the 
Apostle received, was embodied in a symbolical representation, 
of which his natural condition at the time supplied the form. 

And here the course of our inquiry brings before us the pe- 
culiar character of the ecstatic condition. Our ignorance of the 
manner according to which God acted directly upon the mind of 
the prophet will, no doubt, always continue: but this no more 
affects the reality of such operations, than our ignorance of the 
modus operandi in the world of nature affects the reality of the 
operations of God in it. Assuming, therefore, that certain im- 
mediate suggestions have been conveyed to the soul of the 
prophet, we have to consider in what manner they were received 
and appropriated by him, in his state of trance or ecstasy. 

In this condition the entire vital energy is concentrated on 
the world within, the activity of the outward senses passing into 
repose :"—for example, 8. Paul “ cannot tell” whether what took 
place in his ecstasy, happened while he was “in the body,” or 


' Acts, x. 9-16. Cf Olshausen, in loc. The following woids—‘ Now while Pete 
doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean” (v. 17)—exem 
plify in the clearest manner how the prophets were, throughout their ecstasy, con 
scious of their state; and accurately remembered both the fact of their condition, and 
what had taken place in it, Havernick (“ Hinl.,” 11. ii. s, 36), alluding to this featuré 
of the case, draws attention to a remark of Tholuck (‘‘ Vermischte Schriften,” i. s. 87), 
to the effect that this .continued consciousness completely severs the connexion, 
alleged to exist, between the prophetic ecstasy and (the so-called) facts of somnam- 
bulism. Nothing exhibits more fully the prejudices and prepossessions with which 
some modern writers approach the whole subject, than the remark of Knobel, that, 
prophetic visions cannot have taken place as they are represented, ‘“ because (!) most 
of them are described so circumstantially and diffusely, and withal so clearly, aceu- 
rately, and perfectly, that they cannot possibly have been so seen.”—dloc. cit. Th. 
is. 170. But see infra, Lecture v. 

* On this subject I avail myself’ partially of the remarks of Knobel (‘ Der Proph. 
der Hebraer,” Th. i. 8, 155 ff.), from whose general principles, however, I totally dis- 
sent. He quotes the following apposite passages from S. Augustine: “Quando 
penitus avertitur atque abripitur animi intvatio a sensibus corporis. tune magis Hestasis 
dici solet. Tune omnino queecunque gint presentia corpora, etiam patentibus oculis 
non videntur, nec ullz voces prorsus audiuntur: totus animi contuitus aut in cor- 
porum imaginibus est per spiritalem aut in rebus incorporeis nulla corporis imagine 
figuratis per intellectualem visione.v..—De Genesi, lib. xii. 25, t. iii. p. 305. And 
again: “Kestasis mentis excessus est.”—Hnarr, in Ps. xxxiv.—Ixvii. t. iv. p. 242 
683. 


168 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. [LECT. IV. 


“ out of the body.”’ The infusion of the spiritual influence sus- 
pends, at the same time, the usual succession of ideas and ordi- 
nary current of thought ; the power of imagination alone remain- 
ing active, and the sense of spiritual vision being excited to the 
highest degree of intensity. As the bodily senses exert their 
agency impelled by the vital principle which pervades man’s ani- 
mal organization, so the sense of spiritual intuition is called into 
action by means of the new life poured into the soul, Hence 
Visions are the result of Ecstasy. Now, as it is only by the crea- 
tion of new ideas and conceptions in the mind, that the mysteries 
of God, and revelations of things unseen can, in most instances, 
be conveyed to the-soul still fettered by its bodily organization, 
such ideas and conceptions must receive a certain clothing,—as- 
sume certain forms,—be embodied, as it were, in certain shapes, 
—before they can be apprehended by an understanding, limited 
to the experience of this life of ours. If this be not effected, 
such revelation, at the utmost, must be confined to the individual 
who received it: for, were he even enabled, under the guidance 
of the Holy Spirit, to comprehend disclosures thus transcending 
the powers of human thought, and the range of human experience, 
—human language would obviously be incapable of conveying any 
representation of those ideas to others.” Of this nature, would 
seem to have been the revelations vouchsafed to 8. Paul, when 
“he was caught up into Paradise, and heard unspeakable words 
which it is not lawful” (or rather “ possible”) ‘for a man to ut- 
ter.”* But, if it were designed that the revelation should be 
communicated to others, the ideas, by which it was conveyed to 
the prophet’s mind, must be there invested with certain forms 
supplied by such intellectual powers as now possess activity. In 
dreams and ecstasy, imagination alone is active ;* and the forms 

19 Cor. xii. 2. Eire ἐν σώματι οὐκ oida, eite ἐκτὸς τοῦ σώματος οὐκ οἶδα. 

2 “Per donum prophetiz confertur aliud humanz menti supra id quod pertinet ad 
naturalem facultatem, quantum ad utrumque, scilicet et quantum ad judicium per in- 
fluxum luminis intellectualis, et quantum ad acceptionem, seu repreesentationem rerum, 
que fit per aliquas species. Et quantum ad hoc secundum potest assimilari doctrina 
humana revelationi propheticw, non autem quantum ad primum. Homo enim suo 
discipulo repreesentat aliquas res per signa locutionum; non autem potest interius 
illuminare, sicut facit Deus.”—S. Th. Aquinas, Summ. Theol. 2da 24:6, qu. clxxiii. art, 
2, t. xxiii. p. 305. 

3.2 Cor. xii. 4. ἅ οὐκ ἐξὸν ἀνθρώπῳ λαλῆσαι. 

4 The modern Jewish writers (6. g. Maimonides, R. Joseph Albo, etc.), seem to 


have had a just apprehension of the n.anner in which human agency was thus em- 
ployed. The learned J. Smith of Cambridge thus sums up their views: ‘They sup- 


LECT. Iv. | REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. 169 


or symbols created by this faculty, acting according to its natural 
laws, are presented to the spiritual vision of the prophet, to be 
gazed at as an object of thought ; although, previously, the 
original of such symbols had been but the subject of thought— 
or, in other words, mere ideas cr conceptions. 

The nature of the case, of necessity, imposes the several steps 
of the process which has here been described ; and in it we can 
trace the source of that human coloring, by means of which the 
prophets have been enabled to render intelligible to their fellow- 
men the mysteries of the Kingdom of God,—so far, at least, as 
God has been pleased to reveal them. 

To this origin, therefore, we are to ascribe symbolic actions 
and symbolic visions." The peculiarity of the former consists in 
this, that the prophet’s own personality is so mingled with the 
objects which are presented to his spiritual gaze, that he takes an 
active part in the drama, representing one or other of the parties 
engaged in all such intuitions,—Jehovah, or the people. The 
symbolic action, however, was no more intended to facilitate the 
understanding of the revelation, than were the Parables of the 
New Testament to elucidate the sense of the doctrines which 
they convey.” Symbolic visions differ from symbolic actions 


posed the imaginative power to be set forth as a stage, upon which certain visa and 
simulacra were represented to their understandings, just indeed as they are to us in 
our common dreams; only that the understandings of the prophets were always kept 
awake and strongly acted upon by God in the midst of these apparitions, to see the 
intelligible mysteries in them; and so in these types and shadows, which were sym- 
bols of some spiritual things, to behold the antitypes themselves; which is the mean- 
ing of that old maxim of the Jews which we formerlv cited out of Maimonides, 
‘Magna est virtus seu fortitudo prophetarum, qui assimilant formam cum formante 
eam,” [i. 6. ‘Great is the power of the prophets, who, while they looked down upon 
these sensible and conspicable things, were able to furnish out the notion of intelli- 
gent and inconspicable beings thereby, to the rude senses of illiterate people.”] 
Smith proceeds to observe: “ΝΟΥ these ecstatical impressions, whereby the im- 
agination and mind of the prophet was thus ravished from itself, and was made sub- 
ject wholly to some agent intellect, informing it and shining upon it, I suppose 8. 
Paul had respect to. ‘Now we see δὲ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, by a glass, in riddles or 
parables’ (1 Cor. xiii. 12); for so he seems to compare the highest illuminations which 
we have here with that constant irradiation of the Divinity upon the souls of men in 
the life to come: and this glassing of Divine things by hieroglyphics and emblems in 
the fancy, which he speaks of, was the proper way of prophetical inspiration.”— Of 
Prophecy, ch. ii. 

1 See Havernizk, “ Hinleit.” m. ii. s. 41 ff. 

2 “ Weberhaupt aber darf die symbolische Handlung nicht so zu einem verstindig 
berechneten Mittel herab gedriickt werden, da sie vielmehr die hochste innerlichste 
Erregung im Gemitithsleben des Propheten voraussetzt. Sie ist also vielmehr der 
nachstliezende unmittelbare Ausdruck des innerlich Erlebten, ihre Anwendung daher 
jedesmal von der Individualitat des Propheten und seinem Verhaltnisse zur Zeit 
abhéngig.”—Havernick, ibid. 5. 42. 


170 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. [LECT IV. 


merely in this, that the prophet is no longer an actor in the 
scenes which he describes: he now regards them simply as a 
spectator.’ And here the general question of the symbolism of 
Scripture suggests itself. 

When the ideas, Divinely infused into the prophet’s mind, 
related to things which surpass the bounds of human experience, 
it is plain, as I have observed, that ordinary language must fail 
to convey to others what was thus revealed. It was necessary, 
therefore, that such representations or symbols should be moulded, 
as it were, for the occasion, which would best conform to those 
ideas. In this case we may regard the imagination as productive. 
Of this nature, for example, was the symbolism employed by 
Ezekiel, ‘“‘as he was among the captives by the river of Chebar, 
and the heavens were opened, and he saw visions of God.” But 
there were occasions, on which the ideas supplied to the prophet’s 
mind were in some measure related to the world of sense ; and 
here the symbol corresponds to the form which such ideas had 
actually represented. In this case the imagination may be re- 
garded as reproductive :‘—for example, when “ the rod of an al- 
mond tree” is the object of Jeremiah’s vision.* In such an 
instance there is not, necessarily, any essential connexion between 
the image, and the zdea represented ; there is merely what we 


1 Tt is not material to the present inquiry to examine whether the symbolic act was, 
in any case, performed externally, or was (as some maintain) at all times merely ex- 
hibited on the scene of the prophet’s imagination—as we know to have been the 
case in many instances: 6. g. ‘Thus saith the Lord God of Israel unto me: Take the 
wine-cup of this fury at My hand, and cause all the nations, to whom I send thee, to 
drink it. * * * Then took I the cup at the Lord’s hand, and made all the na- 
tions to drink.”’—Jer. xxv. 15, ἄς. An analogy to such inward acts is afforded by 
what took place in prophetic vision. Thus God, we are told, “brought forth Abra- 
ham, abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able 
to number them.”—Gen. xv. 5; while we know from ver. 12, that the stars were 
then invisible to the eye of sense, for the sun had not as yet gone down. See J. 
Smith’s discussion of this question (Joc. cit. ch. vi.) Hengstenberg (“Christol,” 1. 1, 
cap. v. 5. 331, and m1. s. 14 ff.) maintains that, with a few exceptions, the symbolical 
act was never performed externally. The obscurity, however (as Havernick remarks), 
in which the sacred writers have left this subject, proves of how little real moment 
the question is: and it is only material to observe, that the prophets have, in either 
ease, equally placed on record a perfect description of their inward intuitions. 

2 “ And I looked and behold a whirlwind came out of the north, a great cloud, 
aad a fire unfolding itself, and a brightness was about it, and out of the midst thereof 
as the color of amber out of the midst of the fire. Also out of the midst thereof 
came the likeness of four living creatures,” &c., &e.—Hzek. i. 4, &e. 

3 See Knobel, “‘ Der Proph. der Hebraer,” i. s. 158. 

4 “The word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Jeremiah, what seest thou? And 
T said, I see a rod of an almond-tree. Then said the Lord unto me, Thou hast wel’ 
seen; for I will hasten my word to perform it.”—Jer. i. 11, 72. 


LECT. Iv.] REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. 171 


should term a poetical allusion. Thus, in the passage before us, 
the prophet sees ‘“ the rod of an almond tree”'—a tree which has 
seceived its Hebrew name from its being the first of plants to 
awake from the sleep of winter. The conclusion to be drawn is, 
that Jehovah will soon awaken, and hasten to perform His word 
The process by which the imagination was thus called into 
activity, and the laws according to which it acted, seem here also 
to have followed the course of nature ; and to have been as 
strictly in conformity with ordinary laws, as in the case of pro- 
phetic dreams. This assertion is fully borne out by the striking 
analogy which a remarkable class of intellectual phenomena af- 
fords. ΤῸ the mental vision of the painter or the poet, certain 
ideas and conceptions offer themselves spontaneously. In this 
consists his creative genius. The ideas and conceptions thus 
brought before his mind, the artist then invests with certain forms 
of beauty, or sublimity, suggested by his imagination,—of which 
it is the peculiar function to enlist in its service ‘‘ those myste- 
rious relations, by which visible external things are assimilated 
with inward thoughts and emotions, and become the images and 


1 spe— Amygdalus, ita dicta, quia omnium arborum prima e somno hiberno 
evigilat et expergiscitur, Jer. i. 11 (ubi alluditur ad vim festinationis et studii, que in 
hac rad. inest).”—Gesenii Lex. in voc. Somewhat more suggestive of the import of 
the vision was the symbol of the “linen girdle” which Jeremiah “ put on his loins,” 
which he afterwards hid ‘in a hole of the rock by Euphrates,” and which when taken 
thence “after many days,” “was marred and profitable for nothing :”’—for God de- 
clared, “ After this manner will I mar the pride of Judah * * * for as this girdle 
cleaveth to the loins of a man, so have I cavsed to cleave unto me the whole house 
of Israel,” &c.—Jer. xiii. 1-11. In this case we perceive how an additional revela- 
tion was required in order to explain to the prophet the meaning of the symbol which 
he employed. Cf. also the symbol of the potter’s vessel, ch. xviii. 1-6. 

2 The following ingenious summary of the different elements of which the Divine 
communications consisted includes the principle which I am anxious to establish; 
“ Repreesentantur autem divinitus menti Prophets, quandoque quidem mediante sensu 
exterius, quedam Forme Sensibiles; sicut Daniel vidit scripturam parietis, ut legitur 
Dan. v.: quandoque autem per Formas Imaginarias, sive omnino divinitus impressas, 
non per sensum acceptas (puta si alicui caeco nato imprimerentur in imaginatione 
colorum similitudines), vel etiam divinitus ordinatas ex iis que a sensibus sunt ac- 
ceptz; sicut Hieremias ‘vidit ollam succensam a facie Aquilonis,’ ut habetur Hier. i.: 
sive etiam imprimendo Species Intelligibiles ipsi menti; sicut patet de his qui accis 
piunt scientiam, vel sapientiam infusam, sicut Salomon, et Apostoli. Zwmen autem 
tntelligibile quandoque quidem imprimitur menti humane divinitus ad dijudicandum 
ea que ab aliis visa sunt; sicut dictum est de Joseph [qui exposuit somnium 
Pharaonis], et sicut patet de Apostolis, quibus ‘Dominus aperuit sensum, ut intelli- 
gerent Scripturas,’ et dicitur Luce xxiv. 45; et ad hoc pertinet interpretatio ser- 
monum: sive etiam ad dijudicandum secundum divinam veritatem ea que cursu 
naturali homo apprehendit; sive etiam ad dijudicandum veraciter et efticaciter ea 
que agenda sunt. * * * Sic igitur patet quod prophetica revelatio quandoque 
quidem fit per solam luminis influentiam, quandoque autem per Species de novo im 
pressas, vel aliter ordinatas."—S. Th. Aquinas, Swmm. Theol. 2da 2de. qu. clxxiii. art. 
2. t. xxiii. p. 306. 


172 REVELATION AYD INSPIRATION. [LECT. Iv. 


exponents of all passions and affections.”’ It is true that in the 
case which we are considering the conceptions no longer arise 
spontaneously, but spring from a Divine revelation ;—the Divine 
Spirit, moreover, guiding the imagination while clothing them 
with the appropriate symbols :* nevertheless, the means em- 
ployed for this purpose were strictly natural ;—a fact which will 
appear more clearly when we consider the phenomena which re- 
sult. 

In the first place, we have to notice the peculiar style in 
which all Visions are described. Compare, for example, the 
character of those historical pieces which occur in the writings 
of Isaiah and Jeremiah, with the language of the prophetical 
portions in which their Visions are related. We have already 
seen that, in the case of Visions, the imaginative faculty of the 
prophets was called into play ; and we consequently find here 
too, as in the purely natural exercise of this faculty to which I 
have referred, that poetic diction and poetic imagery color all 
their writings. Thus it is that the treasures of the unseen are 
poured forth in all the riches of the visible. The jewels of earth, 
the stars of heaven, sea, fountains and rivers, mountains and 
hills,—every object of creation, visible and invisible,—all are 
blended in the sublime poetry of the prophets. In it is inter- 
woven all that can stir the imagination of man ; armies and their 
array, the battle and the siege :—all that is terrible or imposing 
in nature ; the dragon and the beast, the lion and the eagle :— 
the brightest and the fairest of the objects we behold ; the rain- 
bow and the morning star. In the prophetic language, in fine 
(to borrow a beautiful thought applied to the Revelation of 8. 
John), “‘ we recognise the rapidity of the eagle’s wing over earth, 
heaven, and sea, with plumage catching the varied light without 
end.” 

In the next place, the language and style of the prophets 
vary, not only according to the genius, and character, and edu- 


* See Jeffrey’s Essays, vol. iii. p. 105. 

2 The favorite idea of Philo (see supra, Lecture ii. p. 65), that prophets are ‘ In- 
terpreters’ of the inward suggestions which they receive from God, not inaptly ex- 
presses this mode of recording their Visions;—whereby the prophets translate, as it 
were, the Jivine communication into symbolical language. 

3 “The Apocalypse,” by the Rey. Isaac Williams, Preface, p. vii. In the passage 
above, which precedes this quotation, I lve availed myself, with some slight ver- 
bal alterations, of the eloquent language with which Mr. Williams goes on to de- 
acribe the characteristics of the Revelation of 8. John. 


LECT. IV. | REVELATION AND INSPIRATION, 175 


cation of each, but also according to the manner in which they 
received the Divine revelation, In Hosea imagination seems in- 
exhaustible, and picture follows picture without pause or stay. 
Habakkuk rejects ordinary rules, and is hurried away into varied 
and lofty imagery ; observing, at the same time, purity of taste 
and unity of design. When the prophet has been of sacerdotal 
race, the various features of the Theocracy,—the Temple and 
the Altar, the Ark and the Cherubim—float before his view, as 
in the writings of Jeremiah and Ezekiel.’ The shepherd Amos 
still wanders in his pastures; his imagination lingers with his 
flocks, and dwells on the culture of his fields ; his similitudes are 
taken from the mildew which blights the vineyard, or the lion 
which invades the 1014. When the revelation, on the other 
hand, has been given directly, and without the intervention of 
Visions, all this is changed ; and we observe a serene and unim- 
passioned course of thought, as in the books of Haggai and Mal- 
achi.* 


' Jeremiah was ‘‘son of Hilkiah of the Priests that were in Anathoth.”—Jer. i. 
1. Ezekiel is expressly called “the Priest, the son of Buzi.’”—Ezek. i. 3. Cf Jer. 
iii, 16; xi. 15; xii. 7; xxiii. 11; ]. 28; li. 11, and Ezekiel passim. 

? Of. Amos, iii. 4; iv. 9. See supra, p. 162, note*. The permanence of the 
stamp of individual character is particularly remarkable in the case of this prophet. 
While the writings of Amos present a striking contrast to his humble origin, distinct 
traces of a harsh and rustic dialect are continually to be met with. E. ¢. a peculiar 
orthography; such as axn for ayn, ch. vi. 8: a softening of guttural sounds ; 

Sd for Hv, vi. 10: the contraction ἬΝ 3, viii. 8, for "N°D, ix. 5, &e., &e. (see Hiiver- 
nick, Einleit. 1. i. s. 218). His imagery, as I have observed, denotes his occupation 
as shepherd. ‘Notwithstanding all this, he closely approaches his contemporaries 
Isaiah, Hosea, Joel, and is not inferior to them in power, beauty, and richness of 
style. Eichhorn even remarks: ‘ His language is in many places very learned, and 
full of allusions to history, geography and antiquities (cf. ch. v. 26, vi. 2, 14; viii. 
8; ix. 7).’”.— Havernick, Finleit, Th. u. Abth. ii. 5. 306. Indeed, it may be said of 
Amos, as of S. Paul, to whom, as I have already observed, he bears a remarkable 
analogy (see supra, p. 162), that ‘though he was rude in speech, yet not in knowl- 
edge.” 

I may observe that the idea, embodied by 8. Gregory the Great in the words pre- 
fixed to this Lecture, may be clearly traced to the following passage from 8S. Gregory 
of Nazianzum: τοῦτο τὸ Πνεῦμα, σοφώτατον yap καὶ φιλανθρωπότατον, ἂν ποιμένα 
λάβῃ, ψάλτην moet * * * ἐὰν αἰπόλον συκώμινα κνξ ἔζοντα, προφήτην ἐργάζεται. 
τὸν Δαβὶδ καὶ τὸν ᾿Αμὼς ἐνθυμήθητι * * * ἐὰν ἁλιέας εὕρῃ, σαγην εύει Χριστῷ, 
κόσμον ὅλον Ty τοῦ λόγου πλοκῇ συλλαμβάνοντας Ἔ ἘΞ *  ἐδον διώκτας θερμοὺς, τὸν 
ζῆλον μετατίθησι, καὶ ποιεῖ Παύλους ἀντὶ Σαύλων, καὶ τοσοῦτον εἰς εὐσέβειαν, ὅσον 
εἰς κακίαν κατέλαβεν".--- Orat. xli. ο. 14. t. i. p. 142. 

5. These same tacts have been noticed by Spinoza, who, as usual, has distorted and 
misapplied them: ‘Sic etiam ipsa revelatio variabat, ut jam diximus, in unoquoque 
Propheta pro dispositione temperamenti corporis, imaginationis, et pro ratione opinio- 
num, quas antea amplexus fuerat. Pro ratione enim temperamenti variabat hoc mo- 
do, nempe; si Propheta erat hilaris, ei revelabantur victoriz, pax, et que porro 
homines ad letitiam movent: tales enim similia seepius imaginari solent. Si contra 
tristis erat, bella, supplicia, et omnia mala ei revelabantur. * * * Pro disposi- 
tione imaginationis autem sic etiam variabat, nempe; si Propheta erat elegans, style 


174 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. [LECT. Iv. 


It remains for us to notice another class of facts which supply, 
perhaps, the most forcible illustration of the aspect of Prophecy 
now under consideration : I mean the source of the symbols made 
use of by the prophets, and the influence which not only the 
spirit of the Theocracy, but also the scenes among which their 
lot was cast, exercised upon the imagery which they employ.’ 
Thus the imagery of the prophets who shared the exile of their 
countrymen continually reminds us of the land of their cap- 
tivity ; and the gorgeous and attractive symbolism of Chaldea 
is reflected from every page of the books of Daniel and Ezekiel.’ 
The influence of Chaldean art in giving a colour to the predic- 
tions of Daniel will be at once apparent, when his own visions 
are compared with the form assumed by the dreams of Nebuchad- 
nezzar, which the prophet has recorded in his second and fourth 
chapters ;* while the language of both Daniel and Ezekiel is 
abundantly illustrated by the results of those recent imvestiga- 
tions which have brought to light the long-buried memorials of 
Oriental symbolism. Mr. Layard, in his work on Nineveh, thus 
speaks of the imagery of Ezekiel :—“ The resemblance between 
the symbolical figures I have described, and those seen by Ezekiel 
in his vision, can scarcely fail to strike the reader. As the 


etiam eleganti Dei mentem percipiebat. * * * Si Propheta erat rusticus, boves, 
et vacee, &e. * * * repraesentabantur.”—Tractat. Theol. Polit. cap. ii. 

1 Hengstenberg has justly observed that the imagery of the prophets must, from 
the nature of the case, have been borrowed from objects and relations with which 
they were familiar. Prophecies conveyed in unknown imagery could not have an- 
swered any purpose, and would have been unintelligible. Thus, in the Messianic pre- 
dictions, it seems to be founded in the very essence of Prophecy, that the Messiah’s 
Kingdom should be described in language taken from the earlier Theocracy. And so, 
speaking of the three Offices of Christ as foreshadowed by the Priests, Kings, and 
Prophets of Israel, Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. i. 3, p. 12) says: ὡς τούτους ἅπαντας τὴν 
ἐπὶ τὸν ἀληθῆ Χριστὸν, τὸν ἔνθεον καὶ οὐράνιον Λόγον, ἀναφορὰν Eyevv.— Christol. 1. i. 
cap. v. 8. 318, . 

This same fact has been long since noticed by S. Th. Aquinas :—‘‘ Species pra- 
existentes in imaginatione Prophet sunt quasi elementa illius visionis imaginaria, 
que divinitus ostenduntur, cum ex iis quodammodo componatur: et exinde cortingi: 
quod Propheta utitur similitudinibus rerum in quibus conversatur.”—De Veritate, qu 
xii. art. 7. t. xvi. p. 419. 

2 Having alluded to the nature of Ezekiel’s prophecy, Havernick observes: 
‘“Dazu trat nun ein dusserer Umstaud, die Beriihrung mit heidnischer Weise und 
Sitte, insbesondere mit der reichen, tippigen und anziehenden Symbolik Chaldiaas. 
* * * Wie sollten wir es bei Daniel auch anders erwarten, dessen Stellung am chal- 
diischen Hofe ihm, dem in die Weisheit der Magier eingeweiheten, seiner Ausdrucks- 
weise ein Colorit durchaus verleihen musste, welcues von dem der tibrigen prophet- 
ischen Gesichte bedeutend verschieden ist.”.—Comm. iib. das B: Daniel, Kinleit, 8. 
xxxiii. And Hiivernick quotes a remark of Eichhorn to the effect that the book of 
Daniel opens to us an entirely new world, the reflection not of Palestine, but of scenes 
altogether different from those in which the life of the other prophets was cast. 

3 See Haver ick, ibid. s xxxiv. 


LECT. Iv.] REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. 175 


prophet had beheld the Assyrian palaces, with their mysterious 
images and gorgeous decorations, it is highly probable that, when 
seeking to typify certain Divine attributes, and to describe the 
Divine glory, he chose forms that were not only familiar to him, 
but to the people whom he addressed—-captives like himself in 
the land of Assyria. * * * It will be observed,” continues 
this writer, ‘‘that the four forms chosen by Ezekiel to illustrate 
his description,—the man, the lion, the bull, and the eagle,— 
are precisely those which are constantly found on Assyrian monu- 
ments as religious types.” 

But even here we are reminded, notwithstanding all such 
traces of the prophet’s own personality, how a higher principle 
moulds and directs their words. There was one topic which was 
not submitted to their own style of representation. Amid the 
copious and varied symbolism of Scripture, we can observe how 
the pictures of thise visions in which Jehovah Himself is re- 
vealed always preserve a character quite peculiar ; although when 
describing certain attributes of Deity,—which in no case can be 
described otherwise than by metaphors,—each prophet still em- 
ploys his wonted imagery. When Jehovah Himself appears, the 
sacred writers borrow no coloring from external sources ;—were 
they to do so, indeed, they would manifestly abandon the whole 
genius and spirit of the Theocracy ; and this uniformity in de- 
scribing their visions of God characterizes the compositions of 
all the prophets, notwithstanding the prominence, in other parts 
of their writings, of their own individuality.’ To satisfy our- 
selves of this fact, it will be sufficient to compare the accounts 
of the visions of Jehovah vouchsafed to Isaiah, Daniel, and 
Ezekiel.’ 

1 “Nineveh and its Remains,” vol. ii. p. 464. 

* See Hiivernick, ib¢d. s. xxxv. 

8 “JT saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and His train filled 
the Temple. Above it stood the Seraphims.. * * * And the posts of the door 
moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke.”—Igai. 
ἐν AT beneld till the throne was cast down, and the Ancient of Days did sit. 
* * * His throne was like the fiery flame, and His wheels as burning fire. A 
fiery stream issued and came forth from before Him; thousand thousands minis- 
tered unto Him,” &e.—Dan. vii 9, 10. 

“ Above the firmament was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sap- 
phire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance 
of a man above upon it. * * 4 [saw as it were the appearance of fire, and it 


had brightness round about. * * * This was the appearance of the likeness 
of the glory of Jelavah.”—KHzek. i. 26-28. (Cf. ‘‘ And they saw the God of Israel’ 


175 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. [LECI IV, 


The manner in which the prophets have described those por- 
tions of their spiritual intuitions which relate to future events 
comes next under our notice. This peculiarity of the sacred 
narrative affords a further example, no less striking than the cases 
hitherto considered, of the preservation of the natural character- 
istics of humanity even while the Divine influence was most 
directly exerted. In no department of the prophetic statements’ 
is the supernatural element confessedly so conspicuous as in the 
predictions cf the future. To such Jehovah Himself appeals, as 
proof of an intervention undoubtedly Divine. “ Produce your 
cause, saith the Lord ; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the 
King of Jacob. Let them bring them forth and show us what 
shall happen. * * * Show the things that are to come here- 
after, that we may know that ye are gods.” If, therefore, in 
such portions also of the record of Revelation, we can discern 
traces of the employment, by the Holy Spirit, of the natural ca- 
pacity of man; nay more, if it shall appear that the very limi:- 
ations of the human understanding have been moulded into ar 
agency which most fitly carries out the Divine purpose,—then 
may this fact too be adduced, as still further attesting the jus- 
tice of those principles, on which alone, as I submit, can the tu- 
spiration of Scripture be explained and defended. 

The leading phenomena in all predictions of the future may 
be reduced to two classes.* The first class includes those cases 
in which the dea intended to be conveyed by the revelation 1s 
represented under a particular form :—for example, the pe:- 
fection of the Theocracy is described as a return from the Dis- 
persion to Canaan, a judgment of the nations in the valley of 
Jehoshaphat, and. so forth. This phase of Prophecy appertaims 
to that department of Theology, whose function it is to disea- 


and there was under His feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone,” &¢.-= 
Exod. xxiv. 10). 

See also Micaiah’s vision: ‘‘I saw Jehovah sitting on His throne, and all the host 
of heaven standing by Him on His right hand and on His left._—1 Kings, xxit 19, 
It is unnecessary to quote from the Apocalypse :—cf. e. g. Rev. iv. 

1 Tt may not be superfluous to observe, that the idea of Prophecy or prophetic 
revelation is by no means to be restricted to the announcement of future events, 
Moses recorded the past history of the creation, and Daniel (ch. ii.) recalled to Neb- 
uchadnezzar the dream which he had forgotten, The present was revealed to Elisha, 
as he himself informed his guilty servant, who had received the Syrian’s gifts: 
“Went not mine heart with thee, when the man tufned again from his chariot te 
meet thee.”—2 Kings, v. 26. 

? Tsai. xli. 21-23. 

3 Havernick, “ Hinleitung,” Th. mu. Abth. ii. s. 44, ff 


LECT. Iv. | REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. 177 


tangle the spiritual ¢dea from the form in which it is presented, 
and the imagery in which it is clothed. With this branch of the 
subject we have no immediate concern: it belongs to the inter- 
pretation of Prophecy. The second class embraces the phenom- 
ena exhibited by the manner in which* prophets, in consequence 
of their vivid intuition of the future, bring remote events before 
us. The title of “Seer,” as well as that of ‘‘ Watchman,” so 
often applied to the men of God, suggests of itself a comparison 
with the literal watchmen to whom they are thus likened, who, 
placed upon some lofty tower, gaze upon the far off distance. 
From this analogy has been borrowed the appropriate phrase of 
the ‘ perspective’ character of Prophecy.’ As to the eye of the 
watchman upon his eminence nearer objects appear more dis- 
tinct, while those more remote are wrapped in the haze of dis- 
tance, and in all cases each point of the landscape is projected 
on some other,—so, in a similar manner, the prophet’s mental 
vision takes in the varied events of future times to which his 
spiritual gaze is directed? Thus it is that he describes events 
yet to come, as if they were present :—“ Unto us,” said Isaiah 
of the far remote birth of the Messiah, “a Child 7s born; unto 
us a Son 7s given.” Thus it is that the order of events is often 


1 Havernick loc. cit. s. 45, gives a list of writers who have advocated this view. 
See especially Hengstenberg, “ Christologie,” 1. i. 5. 305 ff; Jahn, “ Hinleitung,” Th. 
mm. Abschn. ii. 5, 368 ff. 

? Hengstenberg (loc. cit. 5. 306 and s. 308) quotes the following ingenious illustra- 
tions of this fact: “Prophets, divina luce qua illuminantur, ad futura plerumque 
prospexerunt, quemadmodum fit, quando ccelum stelliferum intuemur. Videmus 
enim supra nos sidera; quanto a nobis intervallo absint, neenon que propius, que 
remotius distent, non item animadvertimus.”—Crusius, Theol. Proph. i. p. 622. 
“Quemadmodum, simili fallacia optica, longissime distans turris domus propinque 
tecto incumbere, aut lunz discus montibus nemoribusque contiguus videtur.”—Vel- 
thusen, p. 89. 

* Tsai. ix. 6. So also the future is represented as if already past; and hence the 
use of what has been termed the “preeter. propheticum,” which Ewald (‘‘Grammat.” 
§ 262, quoted by Havernick), defines: “die Phantasie des Dichters und Propheten 
schauet oft die Zukunft schon als ihr klar vorliegend und erlebt.” Even Vitringa (on 
Isai. vii. 14), observes Hengstenberg (loc. cit.), seems to have adopted the vulgar no- 
tion that the use of the preeterite by the prophet was to indicate the certainty of the 
event. As an example of this principle, Otto Strauss alleges the words, “ Art thou 
better than populous No? * * * yet was she carried away, she went into cap- 
tivity,” &¢«—Nahum, iii. 8, 10; observing: ‘‘ Paucos illos sequimur interpretes, qui 
futuram Thebarum fortunam preenunciatam viderunt, Hieron., Theodoretum, Cyril- 
lum, Cocceium; verborum igitur forme pro propheticis, que aiunt, preteritis habende 
erunt.’—Nahumi de Nino Vattcin., p. 101. 

This characteristic of Prophecy has not been overlooked by the Fathers: 6. g. 
“Mos iste sit Scripturarum, ut interdum futura tempore preterito declinentur: Verbi 
causa, de cruce Domini: Foderwnt manus meas et pedes..—S. Hieron. Comm. in Ep. 
ad Eph. lib. i. ο. ii, Ὁ. vii. p. 575. Some of them, moreover, suggest explanations: 


2 


178 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. [LEOT. Iv. 


neglected ; and facts, widely separate, are intermingled in ap- 
parent confusion. For example, in the ninth chapter of Zecha- 
riah, from the first to the ninth verse, the prophet sees the 
triumphant march of Alexander through Syria ; in the ninth and 
tenth verses he gazes upon the Person of Christ in the distant 
future ; and then, from the eleventh verse to the end of the 
chapter, he suddenly reverts to the age of the Maccabees." Thus 
also it is that events, parted by long intervals of time, are rep- 
resented as continuous ; the prophet beholding the occurrences 
of future history in juxtaposition, not in succession. For ex- 
ample, in his fiftieth and fifty-first chapters, Jeremiah represents 
the capture of Babylon by the Persians, and its final overthrow, 
as a single event ; and yet these two occurrences were separated 
by several centuries. 

Such is the ‘ perspective’ character of the predictions of Scrip- 
ture. In those inspired pictures of the future there is, however, 
no confused intermingling of foreground and background : and 
whenever the observer can take his stand at the proper point of 
view, and at the requisite distance, he may discern how accurately 
order and proportion have been preserved, amid all the seeming 
confusion.” To an ancient Jew the predictions concerning the 


“Tn Scripturis Sanctis seepe ea, que futura sunt, quasi facta narrantur, sicut est illud: 
‘Dederunt in escam meam fel, et in siti mea potaverunt me aceto.’ Sed cur futura 
quasi preeterita scribuntur, nisi quia ea, que adhuc facienda sunt in opere, jam facta 
sunt in divina preedestinatione ?”—S. Isidor. Hispal. Sentent. lib. i. ὁ. 18, p. 421. 

1 This is the ordinary and received interpretation (see W. Lowth on Zech. ix. 1). 
Jahn, in his “Hinleitung” (loc. cit. 5. 370), adds some further examples. In the 
prophecy to Abraham the foreground is quite clear,—the promise of a son, and that 
son by Sarah; a multitude of descendants countless as the stars of heaven, or the 
sands of the sea: somewhat more obscurely appears the sojourn of those descendants 
in a foreign land for four hundred years; their oppression, their deliverance, the pun- 
ishment of the oppressors, and the possession of Canaan: still more darkly in the 
background, and without any allusion to the far greater distance of time, the blessing 
to accrue to all nations by the seed of Abraham. (Cf. Gen. xii. 1-4; xv. 1-21; 
xvii. 18-21; xviii. 10-14; xxii. 16-18). Again, ef. the prediction of Nathan, 2 
Sam. vii.; 1 Chron. xvii—the background being more obscurely supplied by Ps. 
lxxxix. 20-38. 

3 Τῇ the most important of predictions—the Messianic—this want of distinctness 
is often avoided by the standing formula, ova" mM (“in the last days,” Isai. ii. 2); 
a phrase which, while it removes the period predicted to the distant future, yet con- 
tents itself with describing it as the close of one epoch, and as the prelude to a new. 
See Hiavernick, loc. cit. 5. 45. Cf. ja-->nx, Joel, ii. 28. Hengstenberg observes that, 
in general, the various parts of a prediction may be arranged in due chronological 
order. (1.) There are cases in which the revelation itself gives clear intimation as to 
the time. E..g. the seventy years of the Babylonian Exile, Jer. xxix. 10. (2.) In 
cases where events are blended together in the prophet’s description (e. g. the deliv- 
erance by Cyrus, and the Redemption by Christ, Isai. xliv.; xlv.), we can appeal to 
other passages in which the same events are separated. (3.) We obtain an iusight 


LECT. Iv. ] REVELATION AND INSPIRATION, 179 


liberation from exile were blended with those which related to 
the Messianic age, so as to present a mass, as it were, of undis- 
tinguishable tracery: but when the due distance in point of 
time had been attained, the several outlines of the picture were 
brought out in true perspective. Seen by the light which the 
fulfilment of Prophecy affords, the two events exhibit their mu- 
tual relations: the return from captivity contains the germ and 
presents the pledge of the Messianic deliverance ; the one being 
the beginning, the other the completion. Hence, too, we can at 
once discern how it came to pass that Jeremiah connects in one 
picture the first conversion of the Jews in the days of Christ, 
with their general conversion in the ages yet to come, passing 
over their intervening rejection ;—a fact which is referred to by 
Daniel and Malachi,’ 


into the true sense by considering the point from which the glance of the prophet is 
directed. Thus Isaiah (ch. liii.) appears to take his stand between the past sufferings 
and the futwre glories of the Messiah; because the former were to be described as the 
condition of the latter. (4.) We receive aid from knowing that certain parts of the 
prediction have been fulfilled. Thus, when the deliverance from Exile, and the Re- 
demption by Christ are blended together; the former event having taken place, we 
can distinguish which relates to each respectively.—loc. cit. s. 310 ff. 

1 Jer. xxiii. 5-8. Our Lord’s discourse in S. Matt. xxiv. supplies an important 
illustration of this phase of Prophecy. After He had announced the future triumphs 
of the Cross, and the consummation of all things (‘‘ This Gospel of the Kingdom shall 
be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end 
come.”—ver. 14), there immediately follows a minute account of the destruction of 
Jerusalem, without any intimation that what related to events close at hand was to 
be separated from His previous reference to the remote future. Nay, after dwelling 
upon the horrors of the siege, our Lord, giving up all determination of time, goes on 
to observe: “Immediately (ε ὑ θ é wc) after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be 
darkened * * * and then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven: 
and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn. * * * And He shall send His 
angels * * * and thev sball gather together His elect,” &—ver. 29-31. In 
verses 34 and 36, however, He takes care to separate the two epochs which His fore- 
going prophetic announcement had seemed to place in juxtaposition ; fixing the limits 
of one of them (‘‘ Verily, I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, till all these 
things be fulfilled”), while He projects the other to the remoteness of the future (‘Of 
that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven”). Nor is this the 
only instance in the New Testament of this characteristic of Prophecy. S. Matthew, 
in his narrative of our Lord’s words, supplies two further examples, viz. ch. x. 23, and 
xvi. 27, 28. And, not to adduce the various parables relating to the “ Kingdom of 
God,” we can refer to 1 Cor. x. 11; 1S. John, ii. 18; S. James, v. 8; all expressing 
the same sentiment—“ The end of all things is at hand.”—1 S. Peter, iv. 7. 

2 These latter texts suggest a few remarks on a common misconception which, from 
its bearing on the question of Inspiration, demands some notice. I may take Dr. 
Arnold as a suitable exponent of this misconception. Having alluded to the pre- 
eminent inspiration of S. Paul, he goes on to say: ‘“‘ Yet this great Apostle expected 
that the world would come to an end in the generation then existing * * * Shall 
we say then that S. Paul entertained and expressed a belief which the event did not 
verify? We may say so, safely and reverently, in this instance; for here he was most 
certainly speaking as a man, and not by revelation; as it has been providentially 
ordered t/1at our Lord’s express words on this point have been recorded [S. Matt 


180 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. [LECT. IV 


From the consideration of such phenomena, it is not difficult 
to infer several important results. Without presumption we may 
fairly assume, that certain portions only of the Divine counsels 
were unveiled before the view of the individual prophets. ‘‘ They 
knew in part, and they prophesied in part :”'—their respective 
predictions being but fragments of one vast whole ; the single 
lines, as it were, which each prophet has contributed to the 
sketch of the great picture of the future. In this point of view, 
therefore, the prophetic descriptions suggest to the mind the 
comparison of some elaborate picture of which the outlines, in- 
deed, are traced, but of which the details have not as yet been 


xxiv. 36].”—Sermons on the Christian Life, its Course, &c., p. 489. In the first place, 
then. it may be urged in reply that it is, of itself; inconceivable that S. Paul should 
have been ignorant of our Lord’s words here quoted by Dr. Arnold; or that, know- 
ing his determination of the matter, he should have hazarded a mere conjecture of 
his own. Secondly, we are to remember that 8. Paul himself has warned the Church 
against such a misinterpretation of his words, when he writes: “ We beseech you, 
brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ * * * that ye be not soon 
shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from 
us, as that the day of Christ is at hand,.”—2 Thess. ii. 1, 2, The following criticism, 
too, on Dr. Arnold’s statement deserves all attention. Mr, Greg, whom I have already 
adduced (Lecture ii. p. 72) as denying the possibility of a Revelation from God to 
man, having quoted the remark of Dr. Arnold—“ Most truly do I believe the Scrip- 
tures to be inspired; the proofs of their inspiration grow with the study of them,” 
&e., (loc. cit. p. 486),—proceeds to comment on it as follows: “ Yet he [Dr. Arnold] 
immediately afterwards says in reference to one of 8. Paul’s most certain and often 
repeated statements (regarding the approaching end of the world), ‘we may safely 
and reverently say that S. Paul in this instance entertained and expressed a belief 
which the event did not justify.’” Again: “It is particularly worthy of remark 
(and seems to have been most unaccountably and entirely overlooked by Dr. Arnold 
throughout his argument), that in the assertion of this erroneous belief, S. Paul ex- 
pressly declares himself to be speaking ‘ by the word of the Lord’ [‘‘ This we say unto 
you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming 
of the Lord, &c.”—1 Thess. iv. 15]."—The Creed of Christendom, p. 25. From the fur- 
ther observation of Dr. Arnold—‘‘Can any reasonable mind doubt that in what he 
[S. Paul] has told us * * * of that Great Day when we shall arise incorruptible, 
and meet our Lord in the air, he spoke what he had heard from God ?”—Mr. Greg 
draws the irresistible conclusion: “ What is this but to say, not only that portions of 
the Scripture are from God, and other portions are from man—that some parts are 
inspired, and others are not—but that, of the very same letter by the very same 
Apostle, some portions are inspired, and others are not—and that Dr. Arnold and 
every man must judge for himself which are which,—must separate by his own skill 
the Divine from the human assertions in the Bible ?”—Jbid. 

The misconception which we are considering is, however, altogether removed by 
bearing in mind the characteristic of Prophecy which has been already explained. 
In fact, the New Testament writers, who have made the statements in question, but 
reiterate the invariable language of the Old Testament prophets when referring to 
this same subject: “The day of the Lord is at hand’—m17 DY 2177p; see Isa. xiil. 
6; Ezek. xxx. 3; Joel, ii. 1; Obad. 15. And yet the prophets expressly state that 
the time when their predictions shall be accomplished is not known except to God: 
“Tt shall be one day which shall be known to the Lord.”—Zech. xiv. 7. They were 
conscious that this was a portion of the revelation not unveiled for their understand- 

-ing, and, accordingly, they searched “what or what mwnner of time, the Spirit which 
was in them did signify."—1 5. Pet. i. 11. On this text see Lecture v. 
! "Kx μέρους, 1 Cor. xiii. 9. Cf. Hengstenberg, “‘ Christologie,” 1. i. 8, 303. 


LECT. Iv.] REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. 181 


completed. In its first stage all appears indistinct and obscure ; 
objects seem crowded together without order or proportion ; no 
correct judgment can be formed as to either magnitude or dis- 
tance ; and the spectator must pause, until the progress of the 
work gradually unfolds the artist’s design. But according as that 
design is unfolded, each former difficulty insensibly fades away. 
The introduction of light and shadow determines the relative 
distances which were before undefined. A few strokes of the 
pencil add form and meaning to certain outlines previously un- 
intelligible. And, at last, the artist affords the highest exhi- 
bition and most conclusive evidence of his skill, by adding those 
touches which give unity to his composition, and spread over his 
canvass the tokens of a matured and connected plan. 

The comparison here instituted is no mere figment of the ima- 
gination. A moment’s thought will show how completely this 
similitude is borne out by the expression employed in the New 
Testament to denote the accomplishment of Prophecy : πλήρωσις 
—the filling up, as it were, by the events of history, and the pro- 
gress of Revelation, of the outlines of that sketch of the future 
which the prophets had traced upon the pages of their inspired 
compositions. Accordingly 8. Paul observes, that the Law con- 
tained but the form or outline of Knowledge and of Truth :* 
while 8. John declares that both have been introduced really, 
and no longer by shadows, in the Christian scheme.’ 

2 Rom. ii. 20. “Eyovta τὴν μόρφωσιν τῆς γνώσεως καὶ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐν τῷ 
νόμῳ. Cf. 2 Tim. iii. 5, “Having a form (μόρφωσιν) of godliness, but denying the 
power (δύναμιν) thereof,” Although (as 5. Paul here teaches) the Law conveyed 
Knowledge and Truth but typically, ‘both are really imparted in the Gospel: for S. 
John, ch. xvii. 3, explains how we thence learn to know ‘the only true God ;” while 
he further tells us that “the Law was given by Moses, but Grace and Truth came 
by Jesus Christ.”—ch. i. 17. See Olshausen on 5. Matt. v., B. i. s. 212. 

* Tholuck (“‘ Die Berg-predigt,” s. 134) calls attention to the fact that two pass- 
ages in the New Testament suggest the analogy of a painting as elucidating the trope 
of fulfilling a prophecy. The ordinances of the Law were but “ἃ shadow (σκιά) of 
things to come, but the body (σῶμα) is of Christ.”—Col ii. 17. Again, we read of 
“the Law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the 
things’—Heb. x. 1; where σκεώ is contrasted with αὐτῇ ἡ εἰκών. Now this meta- 
phor is plainly borrowed from the technical terms of art employed by Greek writers, 
ἀπεργασία (“ ἀπεργάζομαι, to finish off, esp. of a painter, to jill up with color, opp. to 
ὑπογράψαι to sketch,” Liddell and Scott); or ζωγραφία (“ Cwypadew to paint, esp. from 
life,” L. and §.), in contrast to ὑπογραφῆ; (‘‘ a first sketch, design, outline, Lat. adumbratio, 
opp. to τελεωτάτη iTEepyacia,’—L. and 5.) or σκιαγραφία (‘a sketching, rough paint- 
tg, such as to produce an effect at a distance,” L. and S.) This remark Tholuck 
illustrates by the following passages, Synesius (flor. A. D. 410), commenting on the 
words ‘‘In the hand of the Lord there is a cup, and the wine is red, it is full mixed,” 


&c., explains that this mixture denotes the union of both Old and New Testament: 
ty ydo τὸ ἐξ ἀμφοῖ! συνιστώμενον, τελείωσις γνώσεως. 4 μὲν παλαιὰ τὴν ὑπόσχεσιν 


182 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. [LECT. Iv, 


This view of the subject renders it manifest in what sense 
only the prophet can be said to have anticipated history. Time 
and the relations of time are matters quite subordinate in his 
descriptions : and while the distinct tracery of events yet to 
come can be discerned in his predictions when illumined by the 
light of their fulfilment, still his words had previously been in- 
vested with a degree of obscurity amply sufficient to allow the 
free course of history to proceed,—an obscurity, too, which was 
indispensably necessary in order to secure that object.’ This, no 
doubt, was the end which God designed wherever Scripture 
shrouds prophetic announcements in dark words and mysterious 
symbols ; and, above all, when it leaves the distinctions of time 
undefined. Now the method adopted by the Holy Spirit, in order 
to attain this end, consisted, I venture to submit, in the applica- 
tion of natural agencies ; and in the employment of even the 
limitation of the human intellect, so as to subserve His will. 
For Him, to whom ‘a thousand years are but as yesterday,”— 
before Whose eye the past, the present, and the future, alike are 
ever spread clear and well defined,—the relations of time can 
have no existence. The vision of the Almighty embraces, with- 


ἔσχεν" ἡ δὲ νέα τὸν ἀπόστολον ἐξήνεγκε * * * Kai τὸ ποτήριον ἕν. ἕν yap ἔπνευσε 
Πνεῦμα, καὶ εἰς προφήτην, καὶ εἰς ἀπόστολον. καὶ, κατὰ τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς ζωγρά- 
φους, πάλαι μὲν ἐσκια γράφησεν, ἔπειτα μέντοι διηκρίβωσε τὰ μέλη τῆς 
γνώσεως.---- Ποηυΐϊ, in Ps, Ἰχχῖν. (ed. Petav., p. 295);—the closing words of which 
passage Petavius translates as follows: “Εὖ quod boni pictores faciunt, olim quidem 
adumbrate delineavit ; postea vero singulas cognitionis partes elaborayit.” 

The second illustration is from Theophylact: πῶς δὲ ἐπλήρωσε ; πρῶτον μὲν ὅτι, 
ὅσα εἶπον περὶ αὐτοῦ οἱ προφῆται, ἐποιήσε. διὸ καὶ ὁ Ἑαγγελιστὴς συχνάκις λέγει" 
iva πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ τοῦ προφήτου. ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰς τοῦ νόμου ἐντολὰς πάσας 
ἐπλήρωσεν. ἁμαρτίαν γὰρ οὐκ ἐποίησεν, οὐδὲ εὑρέθη δόλος ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτοῦ. καὶ 
ἄϊλως δὲ ἐπλήρωσε τὸν νόμον, τουτέστιν, ἀνεπλήρωσεν᾽" ὅσα γὰρ ἐκεῖνος 
ἐσκιαγράφησε, ταῦτα οὗτος τελείως ἐξωγράφησεν,. ἐκεῖνος, τὸ, μὴ φονεύσης. 
οὗτος, τὸ μηδὲ θυμωθῇς εἰκῆ. ὥσπερ καὶ ὁ ζωγράφος οὐ καταλύει τὴν σκία- 
γραφίαν, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον dvardAnpoi.—Comm. in S, Mati. v. 18, t. i. p. 25. 

' Any difficulty, connected with the relation of Prophecy to History, is no other 
than the old question as to how the freewill of the creature can be reconciled with 
the foreknowledge of the Creator. The obscurity with which prophetical’ announce- 
ments are invested (the existence of which Scripture itself points out), has been 
clearly designed in order to leaye the freedom of human actions undisturbed. “If 
thou hadst known” (said our Lord, when ‘ He beheld the city, and wept over it”) 
“even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but 
now they are hid from thine eyes.’—S. Luke, xix. 42. Dr. Arnold has truly ob- 
served: “It is a very misleading notion of Prophecy, if we regard it as an anticipa- 
tion of History. History, in our common sense of the term, is busy with particular 
nations, times, places, actions, and even persons. If, in this sense, Prophecy were a 
history written beforehand, it would alter the very condition of humanity, by remov- 
ing from us our uncertainty as to the future; it would make us acquainted with 
those times and seasons which the Father hath put in His own power. It is an- 
ticipated History, not in our common sense of the word, but in another, and far 
higher sense.”—On the Interpret. of Prophecu, Sermon i. vol. i. p, 375. 


LECT. {V.] REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. 183 


out separation, events which the intellect of man can only con- 
template in succession ; and which, if presented to his mind 
simultaneously, must, from his very nature, become undistin- 
guishable the one from the other. Before the gaze of the 
Omniscient is unfolded the entire course of future history,—its 
various agencies defined, its epochs distinguished, its relations 
fixed. From before certain portions of such a scene the veil is 
withdrawn at God’s pleasure, when He discloses the future in 
prophetic Vision, and opens to the eye of man the vista of events 
yet to come. The human understanding, however, fettered by 
its natural laws, can no more discriminate, when thus presented 
simultaneously, events separated by time, than the eye could 
originally form any judgment, before experience, respecting the 
distance or relative position of oljects separated by space. In 
both cases the mind must necessarily regard the objects presented 
to it as projected the one upon the other: and thus it came to 
pass, that the prophet beheld future events in his Visions, uncon- 
nected by the relations of time.’ 

From this result of the laws of the human mind it follows, 
that all disclosures which God has vouchsafed of occurrences yet 
to come must have been expressed (wherever no overruling power 
had otherwise directed the pen of the sacred writers), with that 
degree and kind of obscurity, which ensures that the free course 
of history shall be preserved, notwithstanding such predictions 
of the future. Hence the very limitations of man’s intellectual 
capacity have become the means—it may, perhaps, without pre- 
sumption be alleged—whereby His ends have been attained by 
the Almighty: and thus we are supplied with another striking 
example of how the peculiar characteristics of humanity have 
been incorporated in the organism of Inspiration. 


* Hengstenberg observes, with reference to this ‘ perspective’ character of Prophecy, 
that its consideration is particularly important in removing objections against the 
Divine origin of the prophetic statements, founded on their not being fulfilled at the 
time when the objector fancies that they ought: no period having been in reality 
marked by the prophet. When, in accordance with the nature of prophetic intuition, 
the prophet refrains from all determination of time, and makes no claim to fix its 
limits, we can as little take exception, on such grounds, to the Divine source of what 
he has announced, as object that every prophet has not foreseen every event of 
futurity. This mode of regarding the nature of Prophecy obviates, moreover, the 
necessity of the forced interpretations, to which those who maintain its Divine origin 
have sometimes recourse, when they set out from the principle that each prophetic 
description must relate to one and the same time, as well as object.— Christologte, 
i 1, 8. 308. 


i+ ¥ rt; 





LECTURE YV. 


REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. 


Αλλὰ καὶ τὸ εἰς ἔκστασιν καὶ μανικὴν ἄγειν κατάστασιν τῆν δῆθεν προφητεύουσαν, 
ὡς μηδαμῶς αὐτὴν ἑαυτῇ παρακολουθεῖν, οὐ Θεΐου Πνεύματος ἔογον ἐστῖν * * * El 
δὲ ἐξίσταται, καὶ οὐκ ἐν ἑαυτῇ ἐστιν ἡ Πυθία, ὅτε μαντεύεται, ποδαπὸν νομιστέον πνεῦμα. 
τὸν σκότον κατεχεύαν τοῦ νοῦ καὶ τῶν λογισμῶν, ἢ τοιοῦτον ὁποῖόν ἐστι καὶ τὸ τῶν δαιμό- 

ων γένος: 


ORIGENES, Contra Celswm, lib. vii. 3, 4. 


‘ Aut igitur, juxta Montanum, Patriarchas et Prophetas in ecstasi locutos accipien- 
a. Ὁ, et nescisse que dixerint: aut si hoc impium est (spiritus quippe Prophetarum Pro- 
phetis subjectus est), intellexerunt utique que locuti sunt. Etsi intellexerunt, queritur 
quomodo nune Paulus dicat, quod aliis generationibus non fuit notum, fuisse Christi 
Apostolis revelatum. * * * Autille igitur, de quo jam supra disseruimus, tenendus 
est sensus, ita Patriarchas et Prophetas, ut nunc Apostolis revelatum est, Christi igno- 
rasse mysterium, quia aliud sit tenere quid manibus, aliud futurum in Spiritu 


preevidere.” 
S. Hizron. Comm. in Epist. ad Eph. lib. ii. cap. 3. 


Ζητήσεως ἄξιόν ἐστι τὸ περὶ τοῦ ‘Ayiov Πνεύματος εἰ δύναται εἶναι καὶ ἐν ἁμαρτωλῷ 


ψυχῇ. 


ORIGENES, Comm. in Joann. tom. xxviii. 13. 
Ἐκεῖνο δὲ προστίθεμεν TH λόγῳ, ὅτι οὔτε πᾶς ὁ προφητεύων ὅσιος" οὔτε πᾶς ὁ δαΐμο- 


νας ἐλαύνων ἅγιος. καὶ γὰρ καὶ Βαλαὰμ ὁ τοῦ Βεὼρ ὁ μάντις προεφήτευσεν, δυσεβὴς ὦν. 


καὶ Καϊάφας ὁ ψευδώνυμος ᾿Αρχιερεύς. 
5, Hippotytus, De Charismatibus. 


LE GTO i Υ. 


REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. 


“ OF WHICH SALVATION THE PROPHETS HAVE ENQUIRED AND SEARCHED DILIGENTLY, 
WHO PROPHESIED OF THE GRACE THAT SHOULD COME UNTO YOU: SEARCHING WHAT; 
OR WHAT MANNER OF TIME THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST WHICH WAS IN THEM DID SIG- 
niry.”—1 S. Peter, i. 10, 11. 


Tue last Discourse was mainly occupied with one only of 
the two elements which co-exist in the composition of the Holy 
Scriptures. In it attention was chiefly directed to the phenom- 
ena which exhibit the active co-operation of the human agents 
who have been chosen to convey to us the history of God’s Provi- 
dence, and God’s Revelation. It was there shown how the in- 
tellectual emancipation of the state of sleep, and the intellectual 
intensity of the state of ecstasy, have been made use of as the 
natural means by which was effected the concourse of the spirit 
of man with the Spirit of God.’ And although what was 
said upon this branch of the subject was, I trust, sufficiently 
guarded, so as to preclude any misconception of the reasons ad- 
vanced, and to avoid even the semblance of lending support to 
the error against which these Discourses are principally addressed, 
—an error of which the source consists in giving undue promi- 
nence to the human element of the Bible,—still this department 
of our inquiry is too important, and too vitally connected with 
the whole question of Inspiration, to be dismissed by a simple 
reference to those illustrations of the constant exercise of the 

1 See M. Athanase Coquerel’s “ Christianity,” p. 205; who observes—‘‘ The more 
the means of Inspiration [meaning Revelation—see supra, Lecture iv. p. 146, note 3] 
are independent of time, space, matter, and death, the more conformable they are to 
the nature of God. But there are to be met with in our present human existence, 
our actual phase of progress, momentary conditions of being, which disengage our 


minds from the bondage of time, space, matter, and death. These accidents of our 
present state of being are especially sleep and ecstasy.” 


188 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. [LECT. Vv. 


Divine agency with which the argument was interspersed. It is 
a duty obligatory above all on the defender of the theory of In- 
spiration here maintained, to establish the reality not only of 
that influence which conveyed to man the Revelation of God, or 
which enabled the Prophet to express what was thus suggested 
to his mind in human language ; but also of that further agency 
of the Holy Spirit whereby the sacred writers have been moved 
to embody Divine communications, history, and doctrine, in one 
organic whole, of which each member transmits its own heavenly 
message to every age. 

This aspect of our inquiry, moreover, follows, in natural order, 
the subjects with which the last Discourse was occupied. Cer- 
tain questions were then considered relating to the form under 
which revelations of the future were conveyed to the prophets of 
God, as well as to the manner in which chronological arrange- 
ment has been disregarded in their pictures of events yet to 
come. Attention was also drawn to that obscurity of expression 
which, as a consequence of such facts, meets us in the prophetic 
writings ;—an obscurity by means of which the free course of 
history is maintained,* which restrains the rashness of unreflect- 


1 The fact of this obscurity is clearly referred to in the New Testament. The de- 
struction of Jerusalem had been foretold by Daniel (ix. 26; cf. S. Matt. xxiv. 15), 
and yet the Jewish nation would not see the application of his words. ‘Thou 
knewest not the time of thy visitation” was Christ’s remark, when he wept over 
Jerusalem, saying, “If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the 
things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.”—S. 
Luke, xix. 41-44. SoS. Paul tells the “men of Israel” —‘ They that dwell at Jeru- 
salem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets 
which are read every Sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning Him.”— 
Acts, xiii. 27. Cf. ch. iii. 17. 

? A fact related by Josephus supplies an apposite illustration. With the most 
minute particularity Hzekiel (ch. xii.; cf. 2 Kings, xxv.; Jer. 111.) had foretold the 
captivity of Zedekiah: “1 will bring him to Babylon to the land of the Chaldeans: 
yet shall he not see it, though he shall die there.”—ver. 13. Josephus informs us 
that Ezekiel, who resided in Mesopotamia “among the captives by the river of 
Chebar,” sent a copy of this prediction to Zedekiah, who set about comparing it 
with the language of Jeremiah (xxxii. 4; xxxviii. 23). Finding, however, that 
Jeremiah had merely foretold that he should be carried to Babylon, while Ezekiel 
had affirmed that he should be brought to Babylon, indeed, but should not see it, the 
king drew the inference that the statement of Ezekiel contradicted that of Jeremiah, 
and consequently rejected both as false.—See Fairbairn’s “‘ Ezekiel,” p. 87. The words 
of Josephus are as follows: ταῖς δὲ προφητείαις αὐτῶν Σεδεκίας ἠπίστησεν, ἐκ τοιαύτης 
αἰτίας. τὰ μὲν ἄλλα πάντα συμφωνοῦντα τοὺς προφῆτας ἀλλήλοις εἰπεῖν συνέβη, ὥστε 
ἡ πόλις ἁλώσεται καὶ Σεδεκίας αὐτὸς αἰχμάλωτος ἔσται" διεφώνησε δὲ ᾿Ιεζεκίηλος εἰπὼν, 
οὐκ ὄψεσθαι Βαβυλῶνα τὸν Σεδεκίαν, τοῦ Ἱερεμίου φάσκοντος αὐτῷ, ὅτι δεδεμένον αὐτὸν 
6 Βαβυλώνιος ἀπάξει βασιλεύς. καὶ διὰ τὺ, μὴ ταὐτὸν αὐτοὺς ἑκατέρους λέγειν, καὶ περὶ 
ὧν συμφωνεῖν ἐδόκουν, ὡς οὐδ᾽ ἐκεῖνα ἀληθῆ λέγεσθαι καταγνοὺς, ἠπίστησε.---οιληΐίᾳ. lib. 
X. vil. 2, p. 523—“‘although,” adds Josephus, “ everything did fall out in accordance 


LECT. V.] REVELATION AND INSPIRATION, 189 


ing zeal, leaves full room for the seeds of faith to germinate, and 
Patholds from human presumption the temptatian to oppose the 
will of heaven. From none of the phenomena presented by the 
contents of the Bible can we infer more plainly the distinct rec- 
ognition, by its authors, of the predominating influence of its 
Divine Element, than from the manner in which such dark al- 
lusions to the future became subjects of speculation to the 
prophets themselves. This is a circumstance which at once sug- 
gests several important considerations ; and, above all others, it 
leads naturally to the inquiry—Did the men of God themselves 
fully comprehend the sense of the revelations to which they gave 
utterance ? That this question must be answered in the nega- 
tive is so obvious that the fact has furnished sceptics with an ar- 
eument—superficial, it is true, but still an argument—against the 
evidence which Prophecy supplies. A late writer, for example, 
of the modern school of disbelievers, observes, with respect to 
the proof of Christianity founded upon the fulfilment in Christ’s 
Person of predictions uttered long previously to His coming,— 
“This is true, and the argument would have all the force 
which is attributed to it, were the objectors able to lay their fin- 
ger on a single Old Testament prediction clearly referring to 


with these prophecies, as we shall in a fitting place make clear.” This explanation 
he appends, as a sort of moral, to the sequel of this narrative: καὶ ταῦτα μὲν Ἱερεμίας 
εἶπε" τυφλωθεὶς δὲ καὶ ἀχθεὶς εἰς BaBvAdva, ταύτην οὐκ εἶδε καθὼς ᾿Ιεζεκίηλος προεῖπε. 
—Ibid. viii. 2, p. 527. It is interesting to notice how the Jewish historian insists 
upon this illustration of the harmony which exists among the sacred writers. We 
have already seen (Lecture ii. p. 68, note 3) how he has adduced the absence of con- 
tradictions as a proof of the Divine origin of the Old Testament: and here he observes 
how ss fulfillment of Prophecy confounds ‘the ignorance and the faithlessness of 
men:” Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν, ἱκανῶς ἐμφανίσαι δυνάμενα τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ φύσιν τοῖς ἀγνοοῦσιν, 
εἰρήκαμεν, ὅτι ποικίλη τ᾽ ἐστὶ καὶ πολύτροπος, καὶ πάντα καθ᾽ ὥραν ἀπαντᾷ τεταγμένως, 
ἅ τε δεῖ γινέσθαι προλέγει" τήν τε τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἄγνοιαν καὶ ἀπιστίαν κ. τ. A.—Ibid. 
viii. 3, p. 527. We have, on the other hand, striking proofs that this half light of 
Prophecy, which thus leaves the freedom of the human will unfettered, has never- 
theless been made an instrument for guiding the course of history. There is no room 
to doubt that Daniel brought before Cyrus the different predictions which foreshad- 
owed his instrumentality as agent of God’s will, viz., the capture of Babylon in the 
height of a festival (Jer. li. 57; cf. ver. 39); how the Assyrian power should be ut- 
terly overthrown by the Medes (Isai. xiii. 17-19; cf: ch. xiv.); in fine, how Cyrus 
should rebuild Jerusalem and the Temple of Jehovah (Isai. xli7. 28 ; xlv. 13)—and 
it is to be observed that the edict of Cyrus is drawn up in the language of this latter 
announcement, see 2 Chron. xxxvi. 23; Ezra, i. 2. Josephus tells us that Cyrus 
issued a proclamation “throughout all Asia,” to the effect that the Supreme God (6 
Θεὺς 6 μέγιστος) had, by His prophet, foretold his name, and that he should restore 
the Temple at Jerusalem. This, adds Josephus, Cyrus knew from reading the pre- 
diction of Isaiah written 210 years before,—a fact which he acknowledged as an un- 
doubted proof of its Divine origin: ταῦτ᾽ οὖν ἀναγνόντα τὸν nee καὶ θαυμάσαντα τὰ 
Θεῖον, k, τ. A.—Antig. lib. xi. i. 2. p. 547. See infra, p. 212, note * 


190 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION, [LECT. vV. 


Jesus Christ, intended by the utterers of it to relate to Him, pre- 
figuring His character and career, and manifestly fulfilled in His 
appearance on earth. This they cannot do.” The fallacious 
character of such reasoning has been long since exposed by 
Bishop Butler :—‘“‘To say that the Scriptures, and the things 
contained in them, can have no other or farther meaning than 
those persons thought or had, who first recited or wrote them, is 
evidently saying that those persons were the original, proper, and 
sole authors of those books ; that is, that they are not inspired : 
which is absurd, whilst the authority of these books is under ex- 
amination ; that is, till you have determined they are of no 
Divine authority at all.” Holy Scripture, in short, presents 
the prophets to our view as human instruments through whom 
the Spirit of God speaks, and by whose lips He announces the 
Divine Oracles,—the sense of which, however, the Prophet him- 
self does not always understand, but after which he “ diligently 


seeks” like other men. 
Before entering fully upon this topic, it must be disconnected 


1 “The Creed of Christendom,” by W. Rathbone Greg, p. 61. 

? “Analogy,” Part ii. chap. 7. The passage to which I here refer is preceded by 
the remark: “ A long series of prophecy being applicable to such and such events 
is itself a proof that it was intended of them: as the rules by which we naturally 
judge and determine, in common cases parallel to this, will show. * * * Now, 
there are two kinds of writing which bear a great resemblance to Prophecy, with 
respect to the matter before us: the mythological, and the satirical where the satire 
is, to a certain degree, concealed. And a man might be assured that he understood 
what an author intended by a fable or parable, related without any application or 
moral, merely from seeing it to be easily capable of such application, and that such a 
moral might naturally be deduced from it. And he might be fully assured that such 
persons and events were intended in a satirical writing, merely from its being appli- 
cable to them. And, agreeably to this last observation, he might be in a good 
measure satisfied of it, though he were not enough informed in affairs, or in the story 
of such persons, to understand half the satire. * * * And from these things it 
may be made appear that the showing even to a high probability, if that could be, 
that the prophets thought of some other events, in such and such predictions, and not 
those at all which Christians allege to be completions of those predictions; or that 
such and such prophecies are capable of being applied to other events than those to 
which Christians apply them,—that this would not confute or destroy the force of the 
argument from Prophecy, even with regard to those very instances.” To the same 
effect Hengstenberg observes that, when we speak of the fulfilment of Prophecy, two 
questions must be kept apart,—What meaning did the Prophets attach to their own 
words? and, What sense has God designed to convey by them? For reasons which 
will be presently considered, Hengstenberg decides that the answer to the former 
question is wholly immaterial; while he enters upon the second by observing that 
the proper author of all Prophecy is God: on which he further remarks: ‘“ The h2r- 
meneutic rule, that we must always seek for the sense designed and perceived by the 
author, is uot violated thereby. The difference between us and our opponents lies 
rather in the different answer to the question, Who is to be regarded as the proper 
author of the prophecies ?”— Christologie, 1. i. s. 317. 


LECT. V.] REVELATION AND INSPIRATION, 191 


from an opinion, condemned by the primitive Church, but re- 
vived in recent times by Dr. Hengstenberg, which, from an er- 
roneous conception of the nature of the Divine influence, and an 
undue depreciation of the human agency employed by the Holy 
Spirit, goes into another extreme. This opinion has been already 
touched upon in the second of these Discourses, where it has 
been shown how the Fathers,—in opposition alike to heathen 
divination, and the fanaticism of the followers of Montanus,— 
strenuously insisted upon the fact that the prophets retained 
perfect consciousness of all that passed within them, although 
their senses were closed against the impressions of the external 
world.’ In that Discourse it has been also pointed out, how the 
first Christian A pologists employed this same fact as the criterion 
whereby to distinguish the condition of the prophets of God from 
the phrensy of the heathen diviners on the one hand, and the 
hallucinations of the Montanists on the other,’ in each of which 
cases the intelligent consciousness of the speaker was suppressed 
to such an extent, that he was totally ignorant of all that he 
himself had uttered. The opinion that this was also the con- 
dition of the prophets of God is advocated, as I have observed, 
by Dr. Hengstenberg ; who has asserted that the distinction 
which the primitive Church laid down between true and false 
Prophecy is unfounded ; and who indentifies the ecstatic con- 
dition of the prophets with the state of the Pythoness or the 
Montanist,—so far as relates to the suppression, in both cases, 
of intelligent consciousness.’ 


' See Lecture ii. p. 84, &e. 

? Οὗ Havernick, “ Hinleitung,” Th. π. Abth. ii. 5. 35. The accuracy with which 
the Fathers, in this case, eliminated truth from error, as well as the difficulty of doing 
so, is illustrated in an interesting manner by the extreme views put forward by the 
author of the “ Clementine Homilies.” There can be little doubt that this apocryphal 
work (the composition of which the learned place at different periods, from the second 
to the fourth century,) was one of the many writings elicited by the reaction against 
Montanism. (See A. Schliemann, “ Die Clementinen,” 5, 185, u. 548.) The “ Homi- 
lies” lay down two criterions of true Prophecy: (1.) The prophet of God has per- 
manent possession of the gifts of the Holy Spirit (Πνεῦμα ἔμφυτον καὶ dévvaor), 
To suppose him for any interval abandoned by the Divine influence, is to reduce him 
to the character of a heathen diviner (τὸ γὰρ τοιοῦτον μανικῶς ἐνθουσιούντων ἐστὶν ὑπὸ 
πνεύματος ἀταξίας, τῶν παρὰ βωμοῖς μεθυόντων, καὶ κνίσσης zudopovuévov.—Hom. iii. 
13, ap. Coteler. t. i. p. 643). (2.) The consciousness of the true prophet must be so 
perfectly retained, that his condition admits neither dreams, nor visions (ἄνευ ὀπτα- 
σίας, καὶ ὀνείρων μαθεῖν, ἀποκάλυψίς éotiv.—Hom. xvii. 18. ibid. p. 743). Cf Schlie- 
mann, s. 186, ff.; Neander, “ Kirchengeschichte,” i. s. 610. ff. 

3 Hengstenberg, appealing to the facts to which attention has been already drawn 
(Lecture iv. pp. 165, 166, &c.), concludes that the state of ecstasy (which he represents 


192 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. [LECT. V 


This learned writer has misapprehended as well the line of 
argument pursued by the early Christian writers, as the true na- 
ture of the prophetic condition.’ In the two extreme cases with 
which the Church had to contend, the individual, for whom the 


as involving an entire suppression of consciousness and intellectual activity) is not 
merely a frequent concoriitant, but the necessary and essential condition of Prophecy. 
His adoption, as we shall see, of the statements of Plato and Tertullian, further 
shows how strangely this learned writer has failed to appreciate the nature of the 
difficulties, on either side, with which the early Church had to contend. Hengsten- 
berg’s view, as laid down in his “ Caristologie” (i. 1, s. 294 ff), is as follows:—IJn dis- 
tinguishing between true and false Prophecy, the Fathers have misapprehended the 
facts as stated in Scripture. From. those statements “it appears that true prophets 
also found themselves in an extraordinary and unusual condition,—in an éoracic,— 
in which their intelligent consciousness retired, and their entire self-life (Selbstleben) 
was suppressed by a powerful operation of the Divine Spirit, and rendered passive to 
such a degree that, as Philo says, they pecame ‘Interpreters,’ of whose organs God 
made use, in order to impart His revelations,”—-s. 294. “It admits of no doubt,” he 
continues, “that the Hebrew prophets, just as the heathen seers (ebenso wie die heid- 
nischen Seher), found themselves in an ecstasy. * * * Even to the true prophets 
may be applied what Plato alleges in the Ion and Phedrus, that with the prophetic gift 
was joined, of necessity, the suppression of human activity, and of intellectual con- 
sciousness.” He then proceeds to quote, with approval, a passage from Philo to which 
I have already adverted (Lecture ii. p. 65, note ᾿--πἐξοικίζεται γὰρ ἐν ἡμῖν ὁ νοῦς κατὰ 
τὴν τοῦ θείου πνεύματος adtEwv),—adding : ‘‘ Since, therefore, we have found the distine- 
tion laid down by the Fathers between true and false Prophecy to be without founda 
tion, the question arises, in the next place, In what does the distinction consist? 
Already has Tertullian placed a difference between the ἔκστασις, and the μανία, ον, 
furor ; and ascribed the latter to the false prophets. And this, with justice * * 4 
In the heathen seers the ἔκστασις, it is true, also consisted in the suppression of in 
telligent consciousness, but this was effected by the lower portion of the soul having 
been excited to a contest against the higher.” And he goes on to say: ‘The state 
of the prophets was supernatural, the state of the heathen seers unnatural—a mo- 
mentary phrensy.”—s. 296 ff. In these remarks it is clear that Hengstenberg ac- 
cepts Tertullian’s statement, and identifies the condition of a prophet of God with 
that claimed by the fanatical followers of Montanus. This view is but a poor substi- 
tute for the sound and rational course pursued by the Church. ‘“ Wir halten (observes 
Havernick of Hengstenberg’s theory) dieselbe fiir keineswegs berechtigt, an die 
Stelle der alten kirchlichen Ansicht gesetzt zu werden.”—loc. cit.s.36. Hengstenberg 
draws the following distinction (without alleging any reason for it) between the 
prophets and the Apostles—‘‘ All Divine revelations were known by the prophets 
through an immediate perception (ein unmittelbares Vernehmen). While in the case 
of the Apostles, the illumination of the Holy Ghost penetrated all the faculties of the 
soul in an equal manner, and did not exclude the activity of the understanding ;—all 
impressions were made in their case upon the inward sense, which (while reflection 
and the outward senses were in repose) was impregnated (befruchtet) by the Divine 
Spirit."—Jbid. 5. 299. By the absence of inteiligent consciousness in the case of the 
prophets, he accounts for the want of perfect connexion and clearness in Prophecy— 
8. 302; see supra, p 177, &e. 

? Compare with the view of this question which I have suggested in Lecture ii. p. 
86, note ', the following remark of S. Jerome: “Simul et hoc attendendum quod hee 
ipsa vel ‘assumptio,’ vel ‘onus,’ vel ‘pondus,’ prophetse visio sit. Non enim loguitur 
in ἐκστάσει, ut Montanus et Prisca Maximillaque delirant; sed quod prophetat, liber 
est visionis intelligentis wniversa que loquitur, et pondus hostium facientis in suo pop- 
ulo visionem.”—Jn Nawm Prophet. Preefat. t. vi. p. 535. Rudelbach, having quoted 
this passage, justly observes that the Fathers, by such statements, neither denied the 
relative obscurity of Propheey—which had its ground in the Divine economy; nor did 
they question that the ecstatic condition was a frequent accompaniment of the Divine 
communications. But they steadily maintained “ that it was altogether inadmissible 


¥ 


LECT. V.] REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. 193 


possession of a Divine afflatus was claimed, communicated his 
pretended revelations while totally unconscious of what passed 
around him ; and the intervention of another party was required 
for the purpose of interpreting what was uttered in his state of 
phrensied enthusiasm.’ It was this absence of reason or intel- 
ligence, when giving utterance to oracular sayings, which the 
primitive Christians justly regarded as a token of estrangement 
from the Divine Spirit. The Fathers never questioned, or thought 
of questioning, the fact that, in many instances, the prophets re- 
ceived revelations from God while in the state of ecstasy : they 
did deny, and in strict accordance with the intimations of Scrip- 
ture,’—firstly, that the prophets were at any time bereft of in- 
telligent consciousness ; and, secondly, that they gave utterance 
to the Divine communications while in the ecstatic condition, or 
while the exercise of their faculties was thereby affected. Huse- 
bius, who enters at considerable length upon the literature of this 
controversy,° refers to a treatise, composed expressly against the 


to represent ecstasy as the psychical foundation of Prophecy,—as Hengstenberg has 
represented it in his Christology of the Old Testament.”—Die Lehre von der Inspir., 
1840. H. i. 5. 30. 

1 Ag to heathen divination, we are indebted to Plato for our knowledge of the 
distinction between the μάντεις and the προφῆται. He says, in a well-known passage: 
οὐδεὶς yap ἔννους ἐφάπτεται μαντικῆς ἐνθέου καὶ ἀληθοῦς, ἀλλ᾽ ἢ καθ᾽ ὕπνον τὴν τῆς 
φρονήσεως πεδηθεὶς δύναμιν, ἢ διὰ νόσον, ἤ τινα ἐνθουσιασμὸν παραλλάξας Ὁ * * τὸ 
τῶν προφητῶν γένος ἐπὶ ταὶς ἐνθέοις μαντείαις κριτὰς ἐπικαθιστάναι νόμος" οὕς 
μάντεις αὐτοῦς ἐπονομάζουσί τινες * * * καὶ ov τι μώντεις. προφῆται δὲ μαν- 
τευομένων δικαιότατα ὀνομάζοιντ᾽ av.—Timeus, ed. Bekker. vol. vii. p. 337. Cf. Lecture 
ii. p. 84, note 1. Tertullian similarly describes the pretended revelations of the Mon 
tanists: “‘Edat [Marcion] aliquem psalmum, aliquam visionem, aliquam orationem, 
dumtaxat spiritalem, in ecstasi, id est, amentia, si qua lingue interpretatio accessit.”— 
Adv, Marcion. v. § 8, p. 591. On this passage Neander observes: “ ‘The interpreta- 
tion of the tongue,’ in Tertullian’s sense, can only mean that when a person in such 
an ecstatic state had spoken in a manner unintelligible to others, he, or another per- 
son—a point which we must here leave undetermined—repeated what had been 
uttered, in language that would be generally understood.”—Antignosticus, Th. ili. § 2. 
(Bohn’s ed., p. 509). 

2 It has been already pointed out (see Lecture iv. p. 145), how Scripture intimates 
that the prophets did not commit to writing, or announce the subjects of their visions 
until some time after they had received the revelations thus imparted: and conse- 
quently not until all ecstatic excitement had passed away. E. g. “Then was the 
secret revealed unto Daniel in a night vision.” On this he blessed God, who “‘reveal- 
eth the deep and secret things,” and went to Arioch, “and said thus unto him, * * * 
bring me in before the king, and I will show unto the king the interpretation.”—Dan. 
ii. 19-24. Again: “Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, was astonied for one 
hour, and his thoughts troubled him. The king spake and said, Let not the dream 
or the interpretation thereof trouble thee. Belteshazzar answered and said, My 
Lord, the dream be to them that hate thee,” &c.—Dan. iv. 19. So, in the New Tes- 
tament, some time had elapsed before S. Peter, restored to his ordinary condition, 
related and acted upon the Divine communication made to him in his eestasy, 
(Acts, x.) 

3 The writers, to whom Eusebius refers as having composed special treatises 


13 


194 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. [LECT. V. 


Montanists by a very early writer named Miltiades, entitled 
“The Prophet may not speak in ecstasy ;” and the historian 
further quotes, as the leading authority upon this whole subject, 
an anonymous author, who wrote at the opening of the third cen- 
tury, by whom a marked distinction was drawn between the true 
prophetic ecstasy, and the false ecstasy of the Montanists, which 
he discriminated by a special name.’ ‘The pseudo-prophet,” 


against the Montanists, are—Apollinaris, Bishop of Hierapolis, A. D. 170 (Eccl. Hist., 
iv. 27; v. 16); Miltiades (v. 17); Apollonius, who states that he wrote his work forty 
years after the appearance of Montanus (v. 18); 5. Serapion, Bishop of Antioch, A. Ὁ. 
182 (v. 19); and especially an author whose name he does not give, but whom he 
quotes at considerable length, and to whose opinions he evidently attaches much im- 
portance. There has been great diversity of opinion as to who this writer was. S. 
Jerome identifies him with Rhodon, who, as he states, composed “adversum Phrygas 
nsigne opus: temporibusque Commodi, et Severi floruit.”—JZib. de Vir. Illustr., cap. 
xxxvii. t. ii, p. 863; cf. cap. xxxix. p. 865. See also Routh, “ Reliquize Sacre,” Ὁ. 11. 
p. 195, and t. i. p. 437. 

? The anonymous author, from whom Eusebius derived his information, describes 
the work of his “ brother Miltiades” as one—év © ἀποδείκνυσι περὶ τοῦ μὴ δεῖν προφή- 
τὴν ἐν ἐκστάσει Aadciv.—Ecel. Hist., v. xvii. p. 282. Cf. Lecture ii. p. 86, 
note *. M. Gaussen (‘‘ Theopneustia,” p. 409) having observed that the ancient Church 
regarded as of great importance the principle “that it is not necessary to attribute to 
the prophets a state of excitement and enthusiasm which prevented due control of 
their faculties,” refers to this work of Miltiades; adding, “See the same principles in 
Tertullianus (against Marcion, iv. ch. 22); in Epiphanius, Jerome, Basilius the Great, 
ἄς." A reference on this head to Tertullian is unfortunate: the passage, too, quoted 
by M. Gaussen, is perhaps the strongest proof of his Montanist opinions. In it, al- 
lnding to §. Peter’s words at the Transfiguration, which the Apostle uttered, “ not 
knowing what he said” (S. Luke, ix. 33),—Tertullian asks: “ Quomodo nesciens? 
Utrumne simplici errore, an ratione quam defendimus in causa nove prophetiv, gratize 
eestasin, id est, amentiam convenire? In Spiritu enim homo constitutus, preesertim 
quum gloriam Dei conspicit, vel quum per ipsum Deus loquitur, necesse est excidat sensu, 
obumbratus scilicet virtute Divina; de quo inter nos et Psychicos [scil. Catholicos] 
questio est. Interim, facile est amentiam Petri probare. Quomodo enim Moysem et 
Heliam cognovisset nisi in Spiritu?”—Adv. Marcion., iv. 22, p. 537. Speaking of 
Apollonius, to whose work I have referred in the last note, 8. Jerome tells us: 
“ Apollonius vir disertissimus, scripsit adversus Montanum. * * * ‘ertullianus 
sex voluminibus adversus ecclesiam editis, que scripsit περὶ ἐκστάσεως, septimum 
proprie adversus Apollonium elaboravit.”—De Vir. Illustr., cap. x1. t. ii. p. 867. 

2 ¢Pareestasis,’ His words are: AAA’ ὅγε ψευδοπροφήτης ἐν παρεκστάσει" ᾧ 
ἕπεται ἄδεια καὶ ἀφοβία: ἀρχόμενος μὲν ἐξ ἑκουσίου ἀμαθίας, καταστρέφων OF εἰς ιἰκούσιον 
μανίαν ψυχῆς, ὡς προείρηται. τοῦτον δὲ τὸν τρόπον, οὔ τέ τινα τῶν κατὰ τὴν παλαιὰν, 
οὔτε τῶν κατὰ τὴν καινὴν πνευματοφορηθέντα προφήτην δεῖξαι δυνήσονται" οὔτε “Aya- 
βον κ. τ, A—Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., v., xvii. p. 233; on which words Valesius re- 
marks: ‘‘ Notandum est hunc anonymum scriptorem nunquam ECSTASES appellare vanos 
allos mentis excessus Montanistarum, sed semper PARECSTACES, * * * Quippe ec- 
stases fere in bonam partem sumuntur. * * * At ‘ Parecstasis’ semper in malam 
partem accipitur.” This writer constantly employs the term ‘ parecstasis.’ Thus he 
describes Montanus as αἰφνιδίως ἐν κατοχῇ τινὶ καὶ παρεκστάσει γενόμενον. 
--Ιρθιά, v. xvi. p. 229; and he mentions, respecting a certain Theodotus, that he 
παρεκστῆν αἰ τε καὶ καταπιστεῦσαι ἑαυτὸν TO τῆς ἀπάτης πνεύματι---ἴ bid, p. 231; 
on which Valesius again notes: “Male interpretes omnes hunc locum cepere. Ilap- 
ἐκστῆναι est falso mentis excessu abripi. Sie παρέκστασις supra sumitur, id est falsa 
ecstasis. Sunt enim vere ecstaces in Ecclesia, cujusmodi fuit Petri Apostoli, in Acti- 
bus cap. x. et xi. ubi Petrus vidisse dicitur in ecstasi visionem. Talis item fuit ec- 
stasis Pauli Apostoli, cum ad tertium usque ccelura abreptus est. * * * Sunt 


LECT. V | REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. 195 


observed this writer, “is sunk in his ‘ false ecstasy.’ Beginning 
by a voluntary ignorance, he ends by involuntary phrensy : but 
they will never be able to prove that any prophet in either the 
Old or the New Testament was hurried away by the Spirit after 
this manner ;” and, as exemplifying the true prophetic state, 
the case of Agabus is adduced, of whom mention is made on two 
occasions in the Acts of the Apostles.’ 

Turning, in the second place, to the other misapprehension 
into which Dr. Hengstenberg has fallen,—namely, as to the true 
nature of the prophetic condition itself,—it is to be observed that 
any theory which represents the state of those who have received 
revelations from God, as offering any real analogy to that of the 
heathen diviners, or fanatical Montanists, rests upon principles 
wholly unsupported by facts. Such a theory must confound what 
is supernatural, with what is altogether unnatural,’ or with 
what, on the most favorable supposition (as will be shown else- 
where), is but a perversion® of the Divine influence. The simple 
fact, that the prophets of God subsequently describe the scenes 
enacted before the eye of the soul,—even entering with the ut- 
most minuteness upon all the details connected with their vis- 
ions,‘—affords the clearest proofs that their powers of memory 
were retained throughout unimpaired, and of itself precludes the 
possibility of their having been unconscious, It would be equally 
inconsistent, indeed, with the character of the Divine influence, 
and the nature of the human spirit, were we to regard the former 
as a crushing and disturbing power, instead of one which elevates 
and calms the soul of man; or, on the other hand, were we to 
consider the human spirit as so estranged from and unrelated to 
God, that, in order to become capable of transmitting the reve- 
lation from neaven, it must lose its vital power, and remain sunk 
in its former darkness and inability to comprehend the Divine 


item false ecstaces apud heereticos, que παρεκστάσεις eleganter dicuntur ab hoc 
scriptore. Hodem modo quo παραδιορθώσεις falsee emendationes dicuntur a Por- 
phyrio in questionibus Homericis.” 

~ ING ΣΙ: 28... ἘΣ ΤΌΣ 

? Hivernick truly remarks that the manner in which Hengstenberg has attempted 
to distinguish the supernatural state of the true prophet from the unnatural state of 
heathen diviners (see supra, note, p. 192), altogether fails: “ A forcible suppression of 
the self-life (Selbstlebens) is, and ever remains, an unnatural state.”—WHinleit. τι, 
oe 9:1. 

5.1 refer to S. Paul’s remarks on “spiritual gifts,” 1 Cor. xii. and xiv. See infra, 
p. 223, note 7. 

* See Lecture iv. p. 167, note ". 


196 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. [LECT. ΡΨ, 


mysteries, rather than be reanimated, and enlightened, and raised 
above the limits of earthly experience. 

The prophets tell us, it is true, how the energy of the Spirit 
of God mastered their natural strength ; but they also tell us 
how their souls were supported, and enabled to endure the sub- 
lime visions upon which they gazed." This is a fact which, while 
it proves that the object of their intuitions was no mere creation 
of their own imagination,—no mere subjective phantasm,—ex- 
hibits, at the same time, how their understanding was qualified 
to apprehend the Divine communication, and enabled to repro- 
duce it for the benefit of others. Strange, above all,? would the 
phenomenon be, to which I have so repeatedly alluded, sf the 
preservation of each writer’s peculiar individuality,—an individ- 
uality so plainly stamped upon the form of his representations, 
—had he been deprived of the use of those natural faculties, by 
means of which he has embodied in suitable language the ideas 
which were supernaturally infused into his soul, and placed on 
record the details of the revelation which they conveyed. So far, 
indeed, are the facts of the case from suggesting a suppression 
of the Prophet’s intelligent consciousness as being” essential or 
even congruous, that we can at once discern how an elevation, 
rather, of all the powers whereby ideas are apprehended was, of 
necessity, required for the purpose of enabling him to receive, or 
to transmit to others, the mysterious truths which were disclosed 
to him. None felt more sensibly than the men of God them- 
selves how incompetent, without such spiritual support, are the 
ordinary faculties of man to grasp conceptions so widely tran- 
scending the natural limits of the human soul. The prophet 
Isaiah, in that most sublime of visions recorded in his sixth chap- 
ter, thus felt his innate incapacity : ‘“‘ Woe is me !” he exclaims, 
‘for 1 am undone, because Iam a man of unclean lips * * #* 
for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of Hosts.” But, on 
a sudden we find his whole being transformed, and his fears dis- 
pelled ; he comes boldly forward with the words, “Here am I; 
send me :” for his weakness became strength, and his iniquity 
was taken away, as soon as the seraph had touched his lips with 
fire from the Altar of God.* 


1 See Lecture iv. p. 166, note 3, 3 Cf. Havernick, loc. cit. 
“Then flew one of the Seraphims anto me, having a live coal in Lis hand which 


LECT. V.| REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. 197 


From the remarks just made it follows, that the continued 
preservation of the human agent’s intelligent consciousness, and 
the elevation of his natural faculties for the reception of tne Di- 
vine suggestions, are the characteristics of true Prophecy. Nor 
does the opinion, already referred to, which denies the force of 
the Christian argument from Prophecy derive the least support 
from such a conclusion. It is no legitimate inference from the 
facts which have been adduced, that the wnderstanding also of 
the Prophet’ must have been so far enlightened as to enable him 
to comprehend the full signification, and to perceive all the 
bearings of the Oracle which he uttered. The passage which I 
have quoted from Bishop Butler points out where the fallacy of 
such a notion lies. But the subject demands some further con- 
sideration, inasmuch as there is no feature of our inquiry which, 
when justly apprehended, exhibits more clearly the Divine ele- 
went of Scripture. 

It was well remarked by S. Ireneus,’ that ‘‘ every prophecy 
is an enigma before its accomplishment.” Let us examine on 
. what foundation this principle rests. In the supernatural and 
natural worlds, Revelation and Prophecy are, in some obvious 
respects, parallel to knowledge and teaching.’ In giving utter- 


he had taken from off the Altar, and he laid it upon my mouth, and said, Lo, this 
hath touched thy lips,” &c.—Isai. vi. 6. 

1 The following judicious remarks supply an apt illustration: Isaac gave a pro- 
phetic blessing to his son, and was therein inspired, and yet mistook as to the person 
to whom he applied it; wherein the matter was overruled without his privity. 
* * * Tnspiration, therefore, is confined to the purposes which God has to serve 
by it. On which account we need not wonder that some prophets, though inspired, yet 
did not understand distinctly their own predictions. Indeed, it was not for God’s purs 
Fee in those cases that they should understand distinctly. He revealed Himself to 
them, not so much for themselves, as for others. Much less have we any reason to 
wonder that some inspired persons should mot understand the predictions of other 
mspired persons, but search diligently into their meaning (Dan. ix. 2:° 1 Peter, i. 10, 
11).”—Edm. Calamy, The Inspiration of the Old art New Testament, p. 127. 

2 He had just observed, that ‘‘Christ is the treasure hid in the field; which is the 
world [S. Matt. xiii. 38, 44]: He was pointed out by types and parables which 
could not be understood πρὸ τοῦ τὴν éxBaow τῶν προφητευομένων ἐλθεῖν. Which is 
the coming of the Lord.” 85. Irenzeus then quotes in proof the words of Daniel: 
“But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the 
end,” &e. (xii. 4, 7;) and of Jeremiah; ‘In the latter days ye shall consider it per- 
fectly” (xxiii. 20),—on which follow the words which I have referred to: doa 
γὰρ προφητεία mpd τῆς ἐκβάσεως, αἴνιγμά ἔστι καὶ ἀντιλογία τοῖς 
ἀνθρώπωις" ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ ὁ καιρὸς, καὶ ἀποβῇ τὺ προφητευθὲν, τότε τῆς ἀκριβεστάτης 
ἐπέτυχεν ἐξηγήσεως.---ο οηΐ, Heres. tv. xxvi. p. 262. 

3 “When Panl asks, ‘What shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either 
by revelation or by knowledge, or by propkesying, or by doctrine?’ (ἢ ἐν ἀποκα- 
λύψει ἢ ἐν γνώσει ἢ ἐν προφητείᾳ ἢ ἐν diWayf—1 Cor. xiv. 6)—‘ revelation’ and 

prophecy’ unquestionably correspond to each other, just as ‘knowledge’ and teach- 


198 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. [LECT. V. 


ance, however, to miraculous communications from God, it would 
seem, even ἃ priort, to be the more reasonable supposition that 
the Prophet should not comprehend the mysteries which have 
been divinely imparted to him, to the like extent, or in the same 
degree as an ordinary teacher understands the various branches 
of intormation which he has acquired by study and meditation, 
—by the exercise of human intellect and the employment of 
human industry. The full meaning of the language which he 
utters must, from the very nature of the case, extend beyond the 
Prophet’s own mental vision. That supernatural intuition in 
which the present and the future are intermingled,’ and which 
has arisen independently of the human agent’s own reflection, 
transcends the power of his understanding, and cannot be ana- 
lyzed by the discursive faculty of the mind. This analysis, we 
are told in the words of our text, the prophets attempted to per- 
form. When their spiritual intuitions had ceased, their ordinary 
powers of reflection came into play; and the subject of their 
prophetic communications, when presented to the judgment of 
their understandings, naturally prompted effort and research. 
‘The prophets,” writes 8. Peter, ‘have inquired, and searched 
diligently * * * searching what, or what manner of time 
the Spirit of Christ, which was in them, did signify.” The 
foundation of this inquiry lay in the pre-forming character of 
Revelation ; according to which it ever veiled, in its intimate 
reference to the present, a constant reference to the future. This 
peculiar feature of the Divine communications was implied by 
Christ Himself, when He taught that ‘‘ the seed is the word of 
God :”” and, according to this principle, the future development 
of the sense of Prophecy is to be regarded as the product of the 
germinating power of the “seed,” which lies still dormant until 
the “ fulness of time.’ 

That the predictions of Scripture are not to be thoroughly un- 
ing ;’ and are therefore evidently to be distinguished as supernatural information and 
as natural acquirements.”—Ritschl, Die Hintstehung der altkath. Kirche, s.489. To the 
same effect Hengstenberg, having observed, that “ What viewed in respect to the 
manner of receiving it, is ‘revelation ;’ the same, when viewed in respect to the 
manner of its delivery, is ‘prophecy’”—goes on to remark on 1 Cor. xiv. 6: ‘‘ Here 
we have a double pair of corresponding parts: revelation and prophecy constitute 
the one, knowledge and doctrine the other.” —The Rev. of S. John, Prologue. (Clarke's 
For. Theol., Lib. i. p. 40). 


1 See Lecture iv. p. 176, &e. 2 §. Luke, viii. 11. 
2 Cf. Beck, ‘‘Propiid. Fntwicklung,” s. 252; and Lecture iv. pp. 149-154. 


LECT. V.] REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. 199 


derstood before their fulfilment is clearly indicated by our Lord’s 
language when He points out their nature and their object :' ‘““And 
now 1 have told you before it come to pass, that when it 1s come to 
pass ye might believe.” Thus it is that Prophecy is likened 
unto the rays of a taper, which glimmers by night, and faintly 
illumines the darkness, until the appearance of the morning star.’ 
The progress of history, meanwhile, enables us to ascertain 
what prophetical announcements have already received their ful- 


1S. John, xiv. 29. Cf “And when this cometh to pass (lo it will come), then 
shall they know that a prophet hath been among them.”—Hzek. xxxiii. 33. 

2 2S. Pet. i. 16-21. The sense of this much disputed passage which I have here 
adopted may be thus stated somewhat more fully. S. Peter had summed up for the 
“brethren,” from whom he was about to be parted for ever (ver. 15), the grounds 
of the Faith: viz., the testimony of the Apostles, and the language of Prophecy. 
““We have not,” he argues, “followed cunningly devised fables, when we made 
known the power and coming of Christ, but were eye-witnesses of His Majesty 
* * * when we were with Him in the holy mount.” We have also, continues 
8. Peter, a further reason for our belief,—viz., ‘the word of Prophecy,” which has 
now been rendered “‘ more sure” and stedfast (θεβαιότερον) by those proofs of its ful- 
filment with which you are acquainted. (Cf. ‘Verily I say unto you, that many 
prophets have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them.”— 
S. Matt. xiii. 17). To this “ye do well that ye take heed;” for before its accom- 
plishment—“ until the day dawn”—the language of Prophecy is ever obscure, and 
casts but a feeble light upon the future, as a taper dimly shining where its rays can- 
not be reflected (ὡς λύχνῳ φαΐνοντι ἐν αὐχμηρῷ τύπῳ :--ααὐχμηρόςεεεάνυδρος). Nor 
need this cause you surprise. Even the prophets could not expound the revelations 
which were committed to them;—the meaning which the event fixes upon their 
language was not a meaning infused into it by their own design ;—the sense of 
their predictions, as it did not proceed from themselves, could not be unravelled by 
their own powers of interpretation (ἰδίας ἐπειλύσεως οὐ yiverac:—for which sense of 
éridvorc, cf. 8. Mark, iv. 34; Acts, xix. 39):—and the reason is obvious: “ Prophecy 
came not in old time by the will of man [i. e. so that the prophet gave utterance 
to his own thoughts and feelings—rd id:a]: but holy men of God spake as they 
were moved (φερόμενοι) by the Holy Ghost.” (Cf the favorite expression of the 
Fathers—zvevuatogdopot; see Lecture ii. p. 83, and supra, Ὁ. 194, note 2.) Rudel- 
bach (‘‘ Die Lehre von der Inspir.” 1842. Η. ii. 5. 15) justly observes, that this φορά, 
or impulse of the Holy Spirit, is by no means to be confounded with the ἔκστασις, or 
personal condition of the prophet. In confounding these distinct notions consists the 
error of Hengstenberg on this question; see supra, p. 191, note *. This explanation 
of ae plainly includes that to which I have alluded in Lecture ii. p. 71, 
note ἡ. 

Here we see Prophecy illustrated under that aspect according to which the Divine 
agents appear passive: the words of the text (1 S. Pet. i. 10-12) exhibit them, on 
the other hand, as active and conscious. We thence learn—(1) that the prophets dili- 
gently applied their understandings to ascertain the sense of their predictions (ée¢7- 
τησαν καὶ ἐξηρεύνησαν). (2) The chief object of their search was, “‘ What, or what 
manner of time (εἰς τίνα ἢ ποῖον καιρόν) the Spirit of Christ which was in them did 
signify.” (‘‘ Quod innuit tempus per se, quasi dicas eram, suis numeris notatam: 
quale dicit tempus ex eventibus variis nuscendum.”—Bengel.) (3) The reason is 
added of the obscurity in which their words were shrouded ;—they were not person- 
ally concerned in the event: “it was revealed to them that not unto themselves did 
they minister” such things. (4) The Apostle intimates that all this was no accidental 
mystery, no undesigned form of ambiguous words. Not to prophets alone was this 
knowledge denied; even the highest of created beings were not admitted to these 
secret counsels of the Almighty: ‘‘ which things the angels desire to look into.” 


200 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION, [LEUT. v. 


filment ; and to recognise the bearing upon the future of certain 
statements of Scripture which we might otherwise regard as un- 
connected with the Christian scheme, or as merely figurative 
allusions." For example :—in the twenty-second Psalm, “the 


' This subject is further elucidated by the nature of Types (Τ ύπος---α blow, that 
which is produced by a blow, or its mark (S. John, xx. 25); the impress of a seal; also 
a model or mold (e. g. τύπος oKnvijc,—Hebr. viii. 5); used also of the resemblance be- 
tween two opposite things (e. g. Adam by whom came death is the τύπος of Christ by 
Whom came Life,—Rom. v. 14.) That a type differs in no essential particular from 
a prediction, is proved by the application to both of the New Testament formula, 
ἵνα 7 γραφὴ πληρωθῇ (e. g. the ordinances which regulated the type of the Paschal 
Lamb are quoted as constituting, in the most literal sense, a prediction: ‘‘ These 
things were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of Him should not be 
broken.” —S. John, xix. 36.) The only distinction which can be maintained is this, 
that in Types, whether consisting of words, things, or persons, the concealment, not 
only of their ultimate design, but even of any further reference beyond the mere rep- 
resentation of each particular type,—was carried to a greater extent than in Proph- 
ecy; in which, as we have seen, the prophets were conscious that their language had 
a more extensive application than they could themselves perceive, For example: 
—the type of the Paschal Lamb was repeated yearly for many centuries, its reference 
to the future being neither understood nor suspected. Referring to this fact, Mr. Da- 
vison defines ‘the genuine Type of the Old Testament” to be “a concealed pro- 
phecy, which the completion explains.”—On Prophecy, p. 275. ‘The Sense of the 
jritual] Types,” he observes, ‘‘was a latent one. It was a Sense not disclosed to 
the Hebrew worshipper. * * * When those types are instituted, there is no 
discovery of their principle, nor hint of their interior signification joined with them. 
* + %& Whatever access the Israelite had to the great significations of his sacri- 
ficial and ritual worship, he obtained it by the insinuation of Prophecy, by imperfect 
and partial arguments, which could not go so far as to reveal the truth.”—Jbid. p. 
135. But to take a more extended view of this matter:—Types are usually divided 
into those which are represented by persons (viz., Melchizedek, David, Jonah, &c.) ; 
or by things (viz., the Tabernacle, the Sacrifices, the Brazen Serpent, &c.). To this 
division Rudelbach (‘‘Zeitschrift,” 1842. H. ii. 5. 38 ff.) adds what he terms (“on 
account of their prevailing typical character,” s. 46) ‘‘ verbal types,” or typical 
prophecies; of which he gives as examples, Hos. xi. 1 [see supra, Lecture iii. p. 109, 
note +]; ‘“‘Rachel weeping for her children,” Jer. xxxi. 15, quoted 5, Matt. ii. 18, 
and the words of Ps. lxix. 25, ‘‘ Let their habitation be desolate,” &¢., quoted Acts, 
i. 20, as predicting the fall of Judas. Considering the question thus generally, we 
shall perceive a further analogy between Types and Prophecy properly so called. 3. © 
Peter (1 Ep. i. 12) expressly tells us, that “it was revealed” (ἀπεκαλύφθη) to the 
prophets that their words had a significance extending to the future. Now, similar 
“yevelations” were made as to the allusions embodied in Types: 6. g. Psalm cx. 
disclosed the spiritual nature of Melchizedek’s Priesthood; while the manner in 
which the history of David is made use of in the language of Prophecy gave the 
people clear intimations how closely the Psalmist’s person was connected with the 
development of the Divine Scheme. (Cf Jer. xxxiil. 26; Ezek, xxxiv. 23, 24; 
Amog, ix. 11; Zech. xli. 7, 8, &c. &c.) Even where we have not express informa- 
tion of such disclosures, we may safely infer that the pious Jew was not left in ig- 
norance of the true bearing of the system of Types in which his religion was 
shrouded. ‘Take the single case of the Brazen Serpent. In the Book of Wisdom it 
is expressly called “a sign of salvation;”—‘‘for he that turned himself toward it 
was not saved by the thing that he saw; but by Thee, that art the Saviovr of all.” 
—Wisd. xvi. 6, 7. 

Olshausen does not, perhaps, go too far when he lays down in his first Tract, “On 
the more profound Sense of Scripture,” that “ Types, Symbols, Allegory [οἷ Gal. iv. 24; 
Rev. xi. 8], Propkecy, are not to be regar‘ed as differing in essence, but merely with 
reference to what is externally visible” (s. 70): to which he adds, in his second Tract 
on the same subject, “ What regarded as an act is a Type, when expressed in words 


LECT. V.| REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. 201 


piercing of the hands and tne feet ;” Zechariah’s description of 
the Messiah entering Jerusalem riding ‘‘ upon an ass ;” or this 
same prophet’s mention of the “thirty pieces of silver.” 

Such considerations clearly show how essential it was that 
the historian of a revelation should have been inspired ;—or, in 
other words, that his writings should have been Divinely guarded 
from all possibility of omission or misstatement. ‘The meaning 
of the predictions which he has recorded frequently depends upon 
the turn of a sentence, upon a metaphor, or an expression, which 
if writing without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, he might have 
deemed trivial or unnecessary; especially when we know that 
even the Prophet himself did not, in general, understand how far 
such features of his announcements were, or might be, of import- 
ance,” This remark will appear more obvious from an example. 
In the last chapter of Daniel, the date of a future event is darkly 
foreshadowed : “It shall be for a time, times, and an half.” On 


is called an Allegory: but because every word is a spiritual aci, and every act an 
embodied word, they are to be distinguished only after a human manner, for in their 
inward nature both are but ove. And inasmuch as no prophecy is arbitrary or mag- 
ical, but the spiritual foreshadowing of that which is to be—-so far all Prophecy is 
typical, and every Type a prophecy. And so of the whole: for the entire Old Testa 
ment is a great prophecy, because its history is an eternal Type.”—s. 19. 

1 Zech. ix. 9; xi. 13. To these examples we may add the prediction of Haggai: 
‘Speak to Zerubbabel saying, I will shake the heavens and the earthh * * * In 
that day, saith the Lord of Hosts, will I take thee, Ὁ Zerubbabel, * * * and 
will make thee as a signet: for I have chosen thee.”—Hagg. ii. 21, 23. ‘ Why” 
(writes Mr. Davison) “is Zerubbabel so distinguished in the prophecy, when it looks 
so far beyond him? Why is he characterized as the signet of God? He is so dis- 
tinguished as being the Representative of Christ; and his fitness to be that Represen- 

‘tative is most evident. Of his line and seed was Christ born into the world. When 
God, therefore, restored His people, and reinstated them in their covenant and their 
land again, by this prophecy He designated Zerubbabel, and set His choice upon him, 
as the signet of His hand and purpose, in whom some work of His providence and 
mercy should be accomplished. * * * Τὴ Zerubbabel the genealogy of the Mes- 
siah, after the restoration from Babylon, begins. Zerubbabel is the head of that 
genealogy: in him it has its double concourse (S. Matt. 1. 12; S. Luke, iii. 27): both 
lines of the descent of the Messiah meeting in his person. * * * Such prediction 
was the more opportune when we consider the state of doubt and ambiguity which 
might now seem to attach to the former promises of God, given to the family of David, 
when that family had been set aside from the throne. * * * To Zerubbabel no 
throne is promised, and none was given. Yet he is chosen. * * * Whence I infer 
that that adoption or acknowledgment of him, in relation to ‘the sure’ and yet remain- 
ing ‘mercies of David,’ the promises of the Christian Covenant, is the specific point 
of the prophecy of Haggai. It is not to be maintained that all this force and cop 
nexion of the prophecy could be understood from the first utterance of it, but they 
may be understood now.”—Discourses on Prophecy, p. 340-342. 

? Jahn has forcibly urged this fact, as exhibiting the distinct functions of Revela- 
tion and Inspiration; the latter being always necessary— weil die Propheten selbst, 
oft diese gittliche Offenbarungen nicht, oder doch nicht ganz verstanden, und folglich 
ohne gottliche Verwahrung leicht hiitten Inrthimer einmengen, und so die Offenbarung 
se)bst wesentlich entstellen konnen.”—/inleitung, Th. i. s. 95. 


202 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION, [LECT. v. 


this the prophet takes occasion to observe: “ And I heard, but I 
understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end 
of these things ? And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the 
words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.”* Such 
passages not only illustrate the assertion of 8. Peter, in the text, 
that the prophets “ searched diligently” for the meaning of their 
own words ;—-they also afford conclusive evidence that as each 
prediction was uttered, reason continued its habitual efforts to 
penetrate the unknown ; and exhibit the important fact, that, 
while he was subject to the Divine influence, there was carried on, 
simultaneously, a parallel exercise of the natural faculties of the 
human agent, who was thus employed to express the revelations 
of God in the language of men.” 


1 Dan. xii. 7-9. Cf. “It shall be one day which shall be known to the Lord, not 
day, nor night: but it shall come to pass that at evening time i shall be light.”—Zech. 
xiv. 7. The New Testament affords some striking illustrations of the fact that the 
full sense of a Divine revelation was frequently unperceived by tke person who re- 
ceived it. After the effusion of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, 8. Peter announces to 
the Jews—“ The promise is unto you and to your children, and {0 all that are afar off, 
even as many as the Lord our God shall call.”—Acts, ii. 59. Looking from our point 
of view, no one can doubt that by those words the admission of the Gentiles to Gos- 
pel privileges was plainly intimated: and yet it was not for some time afterwards— 
and that, too, by aid of a new revelation (Acts, x.; ef: xi. 15-17)—that 8S. Peter, still 
fettered by his Jewish creed, fully understood the force of what he himself had ut- 
tered. The case of Caiaphas “ prophesying,” unconsciously, that “one man should 
die for the people,” is still more remarkable, ‘This spake he not of himself (d¢’ ἑαυτοῦ 
οὐκ εἶπεν); but, being High Priest that year, he prophesied (éxpodytevoev).”—S. John, 
xi. 51. Here the Evangelist leaves no room for supposing his own interpretation to 
be a mere “subjective exposition.” The express denial that Caiaphas “ spake of him- 
self” is introduced in such a manner as to place it beyond any doubt that “he prophe- 
sied,” that is, “spake under the influence of God.” The reference to the office of 
Caiaphas does not imply that S. John considered that every High Priest necessarily 
prophesied; but merely points out that the High Priest was the natural medium 
through which God might at times reveal Himself. ‘ Fuit, inquam, sacerdos; ὁ δὲ 
πρὸς ἀλήθειαν ἱερεὺς εὐθύς ἐστι προφήτης, ut Philo ait..—C. F. Fritzsche, De Revel. 
notione Bibl., p. 62. Cf. also Olshausen, in loc. 

In considering the question, ‘‘Utrum prophetz semper cognoscant ea que pro- 
phetant,” S. Thomas Aquinas decides in the negative, by a reference to this case of 
Caiaphas; laying down the principle: “In revelatione prophetica, movetur mens 
prophet ἃ Spiritu Sancto, sicut instrumentum deficiens respectu principalis agentis:” 
—from which he infers, “Etiam veri prophete non omnia cognoscunt que in eorum 
visis, aut verbis, aut etiam factis, Spiritus Sanctus intendit.”—Summ. Theol. 2da 2de., 
qu. clxxiii. art. iv. t. xxiii. p. 308. 

2 Before leaving this branch of our subject, a word may be said as to the numerical 
statements of Prophecy. Numbers are sometimes employed, as natural facts or his- 
torical events, in their ordinary signification: 6. g. Jer. xxviii. 16, 17; Isai. vii. 8. 
In the great majority of cases, however, they are symbolically significant: e. g. the 
mystic number seven—as in the days of Creation, and throughout the ordinances of 
the Law; cf. also Dan. ix. 24-27; Rey. xiii. 18. ‘The nwmbers of Prophecy,” ob- 
serves Beck, “are to it means of representation as essential as its natural and his- 
torical characteristics ;—only most difficult to be deciphered, because our computa- 
tions are chiefly dependent on the proportions of the outward world: Die prophetischen 
Zahlen dagegen sind zusammengesetzt theils aus den innersten Urbestimmungen der 


LEC'r. V.] REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. 203 


The history of Balaam illustrates still further the principles 
which I have endeavored to establish. Balaam was, in the 
strictest sense (although not officially’), a prophet, or agent 
through whom God revealed His will. This may be inferred, 
partly from the language made use of by the sacred historian 
when narrating the personal history of Balaam, and recording his 
predictions ; partly from the nature of the predictions themselves, 
In the first place, Balaam expressly calls Jehovah his God ;* and 
he nowhere disclaims the justice of the reputation which had at- 
tracted the notice of the King of Moab: “1 wot,” said Balak, 
“that he whom thou blessest is blessed, and he whom thou 
cursest is cursed ;”*°—on the contrary, the phraseology employed 
throughout denotes his intimate relation to the Supreme God. 
Thus it is plainly stated that he ‘‘ heard the words of God ;” 
that he saw “ the vision of the Almighty ;’* that ‘“ the Spirit of 
God* came upon him ;” that Jehovah “met him,” and “ put a 


aussenweltlichen Maassverhaltnisse, heilige Urzahlen, die elementare Welt-Organisa- 
tion bemessend, zu deren Entrathselung nur die biblischen Aufschliisse ther Schopfung 
und Urzeit dienen ; theils aus den Grundbestimmungen der theocratischen Chronologie 
und Arithmetik (namentlich Festrechnung), heilige Ziffern, geschopft aus der Zeit-und 
Maass-Ordnung der Theocratie.”—Propad. Entwickl., s. 201. 

* See Lecture iv. p. 175, note*. That Balaam must be distinguished from the 
ordinary ministers of the Theocracy, whether officially Prophets, or Seers, may be in- 
ferred from the title given to him in Josh. xiii. 22, ‘the Soothsayer” (ΠῚ [Π):----ἃ 
term which the LXX. render by μάντις, and which is usually employed in a bad sense ; 
e. g. “There shall not be found among you any one * * * that useth divination” 
(ΞΡ DopP).—Deut. xviii. 10. Balaam himself, too (Numb. xxiii. 23), places ‘divina- 
tion” (Od/), together with “enchantment” (vm2), in contrast to true prophecy, as 
found only in Israel. Compare, however, Prov. xvi. 10O—‘‘ A Divine sentence (Ὁ) 
is in the lips of the king.” 

* “Tf Balak would give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot go beyond 
the word of Jehovah my God (75x mm) to do less or more.”—Num. xxii. 18. Ba- 
laam no less plainly asserts the great truth that Jehovah was the God of Israel: ‘‘ He 
hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither hath he seen perverseness in Israel: Je- 
hovah his God (75x ΓΤ) is with him.”—xxiii. 21. This use of the term Jehovah 
is peculiar to those who stood within the sphere of Revelation. See Hengstenbere’s 
“ Beitrage,” ii. s. 300 uw. 407; as well as his Dissertation on Balaam 

* Num. xxii. 6: see also Balaam’s reply: “ Lodge here this night, and I will bring 
you word again, as JEHOVAH shall speak unto me.” —ver. 8. 

“πὸ. Num. xxiv. 4. 

5 DPS mn. Ibid. ver. 2. Of. Lecture iii. p. 128, ὅθ. Deylingius (‘‘ Observ. Sa- 
ere,” vol. iii. p. 105, &¢.) points out some analogies between the expressions em- 
ployed in this narrative and those which occur in the prophetical writings. E. g. 
Balaam describes his predictions by the term N93 (ch. xxiv. 4, 16), which is usually 
employed in the exordiums of prophetic announcements to denote a revelation from 
God. “Thus, David the son of Jesse said” (ON2)—2 Sam. xxiii. 1; “ Saith the Lord 
God of Hosts”—TIsai. iii. 15; ‘‘I am against the prophets saith the Lord, that use 
their tongues, and say, He saith.”—Jer. xxiii. 31. So also the term used to signify 
the ecstatic condition: “He hath said * * * which saw the vision of the Al- 
mighty, falling” [552—the words ‘into a trance” do not occur in the original], dsc. 
Num. xxiv. 4,16. Compare Ezek i. 28; iii. 23; Dan. viii. 17, &e. 


204 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. [LECT. Vv 


word in his mouth.”’ His sacrifice, too, of seven bullocks and 
seven rams, was of a form identical with that which Jehovah 
Himself prescribed in the book of Job ;* a form, moreover, which, 
we are told, was employed on one of the most solemn occasions 
of Jewish history,—the bringing ‘ up the Ark of the Covenant 
of the Lord out of the house of Obed-EHdom :” ‘‘ And it came to 
pass, when God helped the Levites that bare the Ark of the 
Covenant of the Lord, that they offered seven bullocks and seven 
rams.”* In the second place, if we look to his predictions,* we 
shall find that they comprise the entire range of Prophecy: 
Jewish,--namely, the condition, safety, and conquests of the He- 
brews ; Christian,—the dominion of the “Star and Sceptre ;” 
Pagan,—the visitation of the heathen enemies of Israel. Of 
one of his predictions, indeed, we ourselves can judge: even in 
that early stage of their history, Balaam foretold the wonderful 
isolation of the Israelites among the inhabitants of the earth : 
“Lo! the people shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned 
among the nations.” In fine, the manner in which Jeremiah 


? Num. xxiii. 16. ‘And Jehovah met Balaam” (A177 7p}. Alluding to this ex- 
pression, Tholuck (‘‘ Vermischte Schriften,” i. s. 409) observes that commentators have 
seldom noticed a feature in this narrative by which Balaam is distinguished from other 
prophets. It is always said that he went apart when he desired to prophesy, and that 
God met him. Thus: ‘“ Balaam said unto Balak, Stand by thy burnt-offering, and 1 
will go: peradventure Jehovah will come to meet me. * * * And God met Ba- 
laam.”—xxiii. 3, 4. Compare ch. xxii. 19, 20. It may be noticed, that Tholuck is 
inclined to regard the fact of Balaam’s exhibiting no surprise at the miracle of the ass 
speaking to him (Num. xxii. 29) as a proof that this entire transaction was purely 
subjective; and that there was no eaternal reality corresponding to the details nar- 
rated. On the other hand, 8. Augustine more profoundly observes: ‘ Nihil hic sané 
mirabilius videtur, quam quod loquente asind territus non est, sed insuper ei, velut 
talibus monstris assuetus, ira perseverante respondit.”— Quest. in Num., xlviii. lib. iv 
t. iii. p. 549. 

? “Jehovah said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee 
* * * therefore take unto you now seven bullocks and seven rams, and go to my 
servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt-offering.”—Job, xlii. 7, 8. See Dey- 
lingius, doe. cit. p. 112. 

3 1 Chron, xy. 26. Cf. also the solemn sacrifice of Hezekiah: “Then Hezekiah 
the king rose early, and gathered the rulers of the city, and went up to the house of 
the Lord. And they brought seven bullocks and seven rams. * * * And he 
commanded the priests the sons of Aaron to offer them on the altar of the Lord.”—2 
Chron. xxix. 20, 21. 

4 Gesenius prefaces his comments on Isai. xv. and xvi. by a dissertation on the 
history of Moab: “Among the oracles, that of Balaam (Num. xxii. xxiv.) is spe- 
cially remarkable, in which that early, although not Israelitic, prophet—urged by 
Moab to curse Israel—is moved by the Divine Spirit to bless it, and to announce to 
Moab its future destruction by a mighty hero in Israel (David), (Num. xxiv. 17, 18; 
ef. 2 Sam. viii. 2):—a genuinely epic piece, worthy of the greatest poets of all times.” 
—Der Prophet Jesaia, i. 8. 504. 

* Davison, “ Discourses on Prophecy,” p. 290. 

5. Num xxiii. 9. 


LECT. V.] REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. 205 


makes use of Balaam’s oracle against Moab' affords the fullest 
sanction to his prophetic authority ;—an authority which com- 
mands the repeated recognition of the sacred writers ; as we learn 
from the books of Moses, Joshua, Nehemiah, and Micah.” 

The Divine source of his predictions having been thus pointed 
out, it is to be remarked, in the next place, how the very defects 
of Balaam’s character were bent to serve the purpose of Jehovah. 
We see, as subsequently in the history of Jonah,* how vain was 
his opposition to the will of heaven: both cases affording, per- 
haps, the most striking examples in the sacred narrative, of that 
‘Law’ of Prophecy already dwelt upon at some length,* accord- 
ing to which each single prediction attaches itself to certain 
events or occasions presented at the period of its delivery. The 
disobedience of Balaam became the occasion of that prediction 
which filled the Gentile world, at the eve of Christ’s Nativity, 
with the expectation of a Universal Monarch. The flight of 
Jonah from the presence of the Lord was made the occasion of 
that marvellous type which symbolically foretold Christ’s sojourrz 
in the tomb.* 

We have further to notice how Balaam (whose visions are δά 
plainly described as the result of genuine prophetic ecstasy), ir 
the midst of his announcements retains his consciousness unum: 
paired, and exhibits the unclouded exercise of his natural under- 
standing. When about to be dismissed by the King of Moab, be 


1 Cf Jer. xlviii. 45, with Num. xxiv. 17. See infra, Lecture vii. 

? Deut. xxiii. 4,5; Josh. xxiv. 9; Neh. xiii. 2; Micah, vi. 5. 

3 “The word of the Lord came unto Jonah, saying, Arise, go to Nineveh, ana 
cry against it. But Jonas rose up to flee unto Tarshish from the presence of the 
Lord; and he found a ship going to Tarshish. But the Lord sent out a great wind 
into the sea,” &c.—Jonah, i. 

4 Lecture iv. p. 147, &c. 

5 “ As Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the 
Son of Man be three days and three nights i te neart of the earth.”—S. Matt. xii. 40. 
The manner in which German writers, even of the school considered pre-eminently 
“Evangelical,” venture, without any eaternal evidence whatsoever, to tamper with 
the text of Scripture, is painfully illustrated by the following remark of Neander on 
the Type of Jonah: “In Matt. xii. 40, the reference is made to bear upon the Resur- 
rection of Christ, which is quite foreign to the original sense and connexion of the 
passage. * * * A special application of the type in this way would have drawn 
the attention of the hearers away from the main point of comparison. For these 
reasons we think the verse in question is a commentary by a later hand.”—The Life 
of Jesus Christ, ἃ 165. (Bohn’s transl., p. 266.) It is well to compare the language 
of Mr. Davison: “Jonah is in his own person a Type, a prophetic Sign of Christ. 
* * * . Our Saviour has fixed the truth and certainty of this Type; the corre- 
spondence of the miracle has fixed it. * * * Jonah, as I may say, compensates for 
the absence of any direct Christian prediction in what he delivers, by the typical 
prophecy embodied in his personai history."— On Prophecy, p. 215. 


206 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. [LECT. V 


again reminds him of his powerlessness in the hands of God : “If 
Balak would give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot 
go beyond the commandment of the Lord to do either good or 
bad of mine own mind; but what the Lord saith, that will I 
speak. And now (he continues) behold I go unto my people ; 
come therefore and I will advertise thee what this people shall do 
to thy people in the latter days ;”’—words which are followed, in 
continuation, as it were, of his personal observations, by that 
grand series of predictions with which his ministry as God’s 
prophet closes.” 

To the examples already adduced in illustration of the prin- 
ciple which we are considering must be added an incident re- 
corded by Ezekiel. According to that principle, the continued 
exercise of each prophet’s consciousness was preserved unimpaired, 
and his understanding still reflected upon the visions which his 
spiritual sense had contemplated, even while his imagination was 
engaged in embodying them in certain forms or symbols, “The 
word of the Lord,” writes Ezekiel, ‘‘ came unto me, saying, Son 
of man, set thy face toward the south * * * and prophesy 
against the forest of the south field :’—a command which is fol- 
lowed by a representation of the vision, composed in a style so 


1 Numb. xxiv. 12-14. The continued struggle between Balaam’s covetousness 
and the Divine impulse which prompted his words is forcibly described by the in- 
spired historian. At first, having sacrificed, he goes to meet Jehovah (ch, xxiii. 1-3). 
This he does a second time, at Balak’s request: ‘Come, I pray thee, with me unto 
another place, and curse me them from thence” (ver. 13). Having again “ received 
commandment to bless,” and having said, ‘‘He hath blessed; and I cannot reverse 
it” (ver. 20), he is led ‘unto the top of Peor,” a hill dedicated to the idol of Moab 
(Deut. iii, 29; iv. 46). Here Balaam “ went not as at other times to seek for enchant- 
ments” (n°»n2—of the nature of which nothing is known)—but, urged by an irresist- 
ible impulse, he proclaims again his blessing; and even after the indignant remon- 
strance of Balak (xxiv. 10), he feels himself compelled once more to bless the people 
of God. 

2 Le Clere observes, on Numb. xxiv. 2—“ The Spirit of God came upon him,”— 
“Vult Philo hoe et reliqua vota emissa esse a Balaamo invito, et contra animi sen- 
tentiam loquente, sed Deum non multo aliter organa ejus movisse ac asinw (lib. i De 
Vita Mosis). Verum affectio animi vatis hujus verius describetur, si dicatur, phrasi 
Homericd, ἑκὼν ὠέκοντί ye θυμῷ heee prolocutus esse; nam voluisset quidem gratifi- 
eari Balako, ut premium ab eo auferret, sed subjecta sibi a Deo non audebat subti- 
cere, aut iis contraria proferre. Hrat plane compos sui, nec alienatéa mente vaticina- 
batur, ut ex tota historia liquet.” This narrative is employed by Philo to illustrate 
his theory of Inspiration already described, Lecture ii. pp. 64—7. He represents the 
angel who met Balaam on the way as indignant at his dissimulation, and com- 
manding him to proceed; for, the angel assures him, his resistance to God’s will 
wonld be of no avail: ὀνήσεις γὰρ οὐδὲν, ἐμοῦ Te λεκτέα ὑπηχοῦντος ἄνευ 
τῆς σῆς διανοίας, καὶ τὰ φωνῆς ὄργανα τρέποντος, ἡνιοχήσω γὰρ ἐγὼ τὸν λόγον, 
ϑεσπίζων ἕκαστα διὰ τῆς σῆς γλώττης οὐ συνίεντος.---ὸὸ Vita Mosis, ii 
p. 124. 


LECT. V.] REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. 207 


abrupt, and conveyed in language so obscurely metaphorical, as 
to be justly regarded one of the darkest portions of even Ezekiel’s 
writings.’ Of this the prophet himself was thoroughly conscious. 
Having received the mysterious communication, he is evidently 
struck by its enigmatical character ; and he at once proceeds to 
remonstrate, as it were, with the Lord on account of its obscur- 
ity: ‘‘Then said I, Ah, Lord God, they say of me, Doth he not 
speak parables ?” 
In all the cases which we have just considered, it is obvious 
if any confidence is to be placed in, or value ascribed to, their 
assertions—that the different sacred writers aver, as a simple mat- 
ter of fact, that they received certain communications from with- 
out which they pointedly distinguish from the suggestions of their 
own minds, and the results of their own reflection.2 The two 
questions, then, arise, by what means were they assured them- 
selves, and how did they convince others, that such communica- 


1 Ezek. xx. 45-49. [xxi. 1-5] “It is written throughout in a style so singularly 
abrupt, and in some parts so utterly enigmatical, that it may certainly be considered, 
as a whole, one of the darkest portions of Ezekiel’s writings.” Hzekiel,” p. 185, by 
Mr. Fairbairn; who observes that Bishop Horsley [ Bibl. Crit.,” vol. ii, 2nd ed. p. 
97] “has here simply left « record of his inability to proceed, in the brief note, ‘ The 
difficulties of this chapter are to me insuperable.’ ” 

? This fact appears most clearly in the contrast which the prophets of God draw 
between their own words and the predictions of the false prophets. Ezekiel repre- 
sents that distinction as being threefold: “Son of man, prophesy against the prophets 
of Israel, and say thou unto them (1) that prophesy out of their own hearts, Hear ye 
the word of the Lord; Woe unto the foolish prophets (2) that follow their own spirit, 
and (3) have seen nothing.” —Hzek. xiii. 2, 3. On this description of false prophecy 
Mr. Fairbairn well observes: ‘‘ Expressed in philosophical language, the whole was 
subjective merely, without any objective reality. The true prophet differed in each 
particular from the false one: He prophesied not from his own heart, but from the 
heart of God; in conceiving and uttering his message, he followed not his own spirit, 
but the Spirit of God; and consequently the word he spake contained a true and 
Divine reality. * * * Hence the peculiar expression which is frequently em- 
ployed of seeing the word of the Lord—(Isai. ii. 1; xiii, 1; Amos, i. 1; Mic. 1. 1).” 
Ezekiel, p. 96. 

3. With respect to the absolute assurance which the prophets had of the ‘ objective’ 
Teality of the Divine communications, 8. Thomas Aquinas argues with great acute- 
ness. (1) He alludes to the conviction of the truth of his message which Jeremiah 
must have felt when he braved the death to which the Law (Deut. xviii. 20) had 
condemned the false prophet: “Know ye for certain,” said Jeremiah, “that if ye 
put me to death ye shall surely bring innocent blood upon yourselves : for of a truth 
the Lord hath sent me unto you.”—Jer. xxvi. 15. (2) He points out the readiness 
of Abraham to slay his son: “Signum propheticze certitudinis accipere possumus ex 
hoe quod Abraham, admonitus in prophetica visione, se preeparavit ad filium unigen- 
itum immolandum: quod nullatenus fecisset, nisi de divina revelatione fuisset certis- 
simus. —Summ. Theol. 2da 2626, qu. clxxi. art. 5. t. xxiii. p. 295. We may add the 
case of S. Paul. Can we feel any doubt as to the force of those proofs which con- 
vinced that profound intellect of the truth of the revelations which he received ; and 
which effected a revolution in his nature that impelled him, without “‘ conferring with 
flesh and blood,” to come forward as the most zealous and enlightened promulgator 


208 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION, (LECT. ¥ 


tions were undoubtedly Divine ? As to the manner, indeed, by 
which the external suggestions were conveyed to the mind, we 
know nothing. They only who received those revelations from 
God could have imparted this information,—for they only had 
experience of the feelings which accompanied the illapse of the 
Divine energy: and they are silent. Or, if a casual hint be 
dropped with reference to this action of the Divine influence on 
the soul, it is simply by employing a material image to express 
the inward experience. Thus Jeremiah says: “The Lord put 
forth His hand, and touched my mouth :” and Ezekiel records 
how “an hand was sent unto me; and lo, a roll of a book was 
therein; and * * * He said unto me, Son of man, eat this 
roll, and go speak unto the house of [5186]. Respecting this 
want of information, the defender of Revealed Religion need feel 
neither concern nor surprise.” It is but another example of that 
ignorance which is the natural condition of humanity. In our 
intercourse with our fellow-men, we cannot tell how spirit acts 
upon spirit. In our every-day life, we cannot tell how matter acts 
upon mind.’ Persons who are without the sense of sight cannot 
represent to themselves the perceptions which accompany the 


of doctrines whick he had hitherto mistaken, and persecuted to the death ?—Gal. i. 
16-23. 

1 Jer. i. 9; Ezek. ii. 9, iii. 1. Of Rev. x. 8-10; and supra, p. 196, note 2. 

2 “ As our sensations carry the notions of material things to our understandings 
which before were unacquainted with them; so there is some analogical way whereby 
the knowledge of Divine Truth may also be revealed to us. For so we may call as 
well that historical truth of corporeal and material things, which we are informed of 
by our senses, truth of revelation, as that Divine Truth which we now speak of; and 
therefore we may have as certain and infallible a way of being acquainted with the 
one, as with the other. And God having so contrived the nature of our souls, that 
we may converse one with another, and inform one another of things we knew not 
before, would not make us so deaf to His Divine voice that breaks the rocks, and 
rends the mountains asunder; He would not make us so undisciplinable in Divine 
things as that we should not be capable of receiving any impressions from Himself 
of those things which we were before unacquainted with.” —J. Smith (of Cambridge.) 
Of Prophecy, ch. i. 

3 « What are the facts which are the objects of intuition or consciousness, and 
what are those which we merely infer? But this inquiry has never been considered 
a portion of logic. Its place is in another and a perfectly distinct department of 
science, to which the name metaphysics more particularly belongs. * * * To 
this science appertain the great and much debated questions of the existence of mat 
ter; the existence of spirit, and of a distinction between it and matter; the reality 
of time and space, as things without the mind, and distinguishable from the objects 
which are said to exist iz them. For in the present state of the discussion on these 
topics, it is universally allowed that the existence of matter or of spinit, of space or 
of time is, in its nature, unsusceptible of being proved; and tl.at if anything is known 
of them, it must be by immediate intuition."—J. S. Mill, A system of Logic, vol. 1. 
3rd ed. p. 7 


LECT. V.| REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. 209 


ideas of light and color; and yet they do not question the ex- 
istence of those qualities of the material world, convinced by the 
evidence which the experience of others supply. Shall we, then, 
ungifted with the power of spiritual vision, deny the reality of 
that knowledge which God has conveyed by it, while moral evi- 
dence equally powerful is at our command? Or to state the 
same thing more generally, and with reference to speculative 
difficulties respecting both the questions above proposed :—we 
know how the Idealist triumphs in his supposed refutation of 
the existence of the external world ; and yet men of ordinary un- 
derstanding still listen to his arguments with wondering disdain, 
or regard it, at the most, as a clever exhibition of dialectical skill. 
We live, and act, and think, perfectly indifferent to the argu- 
ments which should convince us that the world without is a non- 
entity. The original reception of Christianity by the Gentile 
world enables us, here also, to appeal to the common sense of 
mankind, in reply to an analogous exhibition of mere intellectual 
ingenuity. Not to dwell upon Hume’s notorious argument to 
show that no evidence can prove a miracle,’ or upon the practical 
answer to it which such a fact supplies, the speculations of a 
writer, to whom allusion has been made more than once in these 
Discourses, afford an immediate illustration. Schleiermacher ar- 
gues against the eflicacy of miracles, and chiefly against the 
efficacy of Prophecy, as proofs of Christianity ;? and with his de- 


? The only consistent view is that which denies the possibility of a revelation: 
“Tf we may be well enough assured of the author of any book, and also of his hon- 
esty, yet it was further objected that this author, whoever he was, could not be sure 
that he himself was not deceived in his opinion of his own inspiration, or of a revela- 
tion made to himself’ * * * But, First, if he could not be sure of his own in- 
spiration, or of a revelation made to himself, how then could any man now-a-days 
be sure of the same, if God should vouchsafe to speak to us now, as ’tis said He 
did in former times to the prophets and other inspired men, by Himself, or an 
Angel? So that this objection, if it be well grounded, cuts off not only all reason- 
able belief of former revelations, but likewise all reasonable belief of any revelation 
that can now be made to ourselves, or others. And ’tis to no purpose to offer at 
anything to convince those of the truth of any revelation who are of opinion that 
even the infinite power and wisdom of God cannot make such a revelation of His 
will to them as would be credible, such as they should reasonably judge sufficient 
for their conviction.”—Fourteen Sermons by Bishop O. Blackall, p. 21. 

3. Schleiermacher sets out from the following proposition: “There is no other 
means of obtaining a share in the Christian Community, than through Faith in Jesus 
as the Redeemer.” By the expression, “ Faith in Christ,” Schleiermacher under- 
stands “The certainty accompanying a state of the higher self-consciousness ; which 
consequently is different from, but not therefore inferior to, that which accompanies 
the objective consciousness. In the same sense Faith in God is used to denote 
nothing else than the certainty conceruing the absolute feeling of dependence as 
auch, i. e. as conditioned (bedingt) by a Being placed without us, and expressing our 

14 


210 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. [LECT. V. 


nial of the latter is closely connected his rejection of the authority 
of the Old Testament.’ But the Christian Apologist will turn 
from the subtlety of the mere dialectician to the facts of history, 


relation to Him. ὃ * * Theexpression, Faith in Christ (as that of Faith in God) 
is the reference of the state, as effect, to Christ as cause. * * * Although in 
Scripture itself arguments, of which the witnesses to the Gospel have availed them- 
selves, are frequently mentioned (Acts, vi. 9, 10; ix. 20-22; xviii. 27, 28), still, it is 
never maintained that Faith has arisen from the adducing of proofs, but from the 
announcement.” Such proofs, he adds, were solely designed to point out the appli- 
cability of the prophecies to this Jesus as Redeemer—otherwise the Gentiles must 
have first become Jews in order to be brought to Christianity by the authority of the 
prophets. Here, therefore, all demonstration must be excluded:—but “ Men would 
fain bring about the acknowledgment of Christ, by means of the Miracles which He 
has wrought, or the Prophecies which have announced His coming, or the peculiar 
nature of the evidence originally given concerning Him, that it is a work of Divine 
Inspiration. The fallacy here (speaking generally) is, that the efficacy of these cir- 
cumstances always presupposes Faith as already existing, and therefore cannot pro- 
duce it. As to Miracles, in the strict sense of the word (i. e. excluding Prophecy, 
Inspiration, &c.), if we confine ourselves to those which Jesus Himself has wrought, 
or even take in those wrought with reference to Him—these can by no means effect 
such an acknowledgment. * * * For Scripture itself attests, partly that Faith 
has been produced without Miracles, partly, that Miracles have not produced it; from 
which it can be concluded that where Faith has been produced even in connexion 
with Miracles, it has not been produced by them, but in that original manner.” As 
to Prophecy, we can easily conceive that a Jew might admit its reference to Jesus, 
and, nevertheless, that he neither had true Faith, nor was a member of the Church, 
—because he did not yet feel the need of Redemption. And were a Gentile even 
to be convinced that the Prophecies were connected with each other; and that all 
of them have in view one and the same subject; and, further, that they have been 
all strictly fulfilled in Christ,—still it must be assumed that Jesus is the Redeemer, 
because the Redeemer has been predicted by such intimations as the Gentile finds 
applicable to Jesus. Nay, more—we cannot see how a Gentile could have confidence 
in the men who uttered the Prophecies, unless we further assume that their inspira- 
tion has been proved to him. But further :—since it can never be proved that the 
prophets have foreseen Christ as He has actually existed, and still less the Kingdom 
of the Messiah, as it has been actually developed in Christianity, “it must be con- 
ceded that a proof of Christ as the Redeemer is impossible by means of Prophecy. 
* * * We must therefore clearly distinguish between the apologetic use of the 
Prophecies made by the Apostles in their relation to the Jews, and a general use of 
them as means of proof.”—Der Chrisil. Glaube, Β. 1. s. 87 ff. (Cf also Lecture iii. p. 
100, note 3.) Schleiermacher next proceeds to the question of Inspiration, for his re- 
marks on which see supra, Lecture 1. p. 35. 

1 Quinet says of Schleiermacher, that no man has made greater efforts to reconcile 
ancient faith with modern science. The concessions into which he has been drawn 
are incredible: — Comme un homme battu par un violent orage, il a sacrifié les mats 
et la voilure pour sauver le corps du vaisseau.” At first he gives up the Old Testa- 
ment; ‘“c’est ce quwil appelait rompre avec l’ancienne alliance.” At a later period, 
having made an Old Testament without prophecies, he makes a Gospel without mir- 
acles: “Encore arrivait-il ἃ ce débris de révélation, non plus par les Ecritures, mais 
par une espéce de ravissement de conscience, ou plutot par un miracle de la parole 
interieure.”—Revue des deua Mondes, 1838, t. iv. p.473. In a series of papers pub- 
lished in the “Studien und Kritiken,” for 1829, entitled, ‘‘ Ueber seine Glaubenslehre 
an Dr. Liicke,” Schleiermacher avers that he neither can nor will maintain against 
external investigation a dominant ecclesiastical doctrine, which, to all who are with- 
out, appears an unsubstantial spectre ; but that he will avail himself of history as it 
develops itself, and then will resign much which many are still disposed to consider 
inseparably connected with the essence of Christianity. “1 will not speak,” he ob 
werves, ‘of the Six Days’ Work; but the very idea of Creation, as it is usually con 


LECT. V.| REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. 211 


in whose pages he will read that no evidence has appeared more 
overpowering to the mind of enlightened Heathenism, than the 
fulfilment of the predictions of ancient times in the Person of 
Jesus of Nazareth.’ 


strued—even abstracting from all return to the Mosaic Chronology—how long will 
it be able still to maintain itself against the power of a cultivated view of the world 
resulting from scientific combinations which no one can escape?” How long, he 
asks, will the New Testament miracles,—he will not waste time upon those of the 
Old,—maintain their place against far weightier objections than those advanced by 
the French Encyclopedists? ‘‘ Hither the whole history to which they belong must 
be regarded as a fable, from which what is historical in its foundation can no longer 
be extricated,—and then Christianity appears no longer to proceed from the Being 
of God, but from nothing: or if they be really regarded as matters of fact, we must 
grant that so far as they have been produced im nature, analogies to them must be 
also found in nature—and thus the old idea of a miracle must be given up.”—(s 
489.) On these remarks Quinet observes: ‘“ Je ne crois pas que l’on ait jamais con- 
sidéré l’abime avec un plus tranquille désespoir.” 

' In every age of the world the prescience of future contingents has appeared to 
human reason the most incomprehensible of the attributes ascribed to Deity. Cicero, 
ridiculing the pretensions of the heathen oracles (he describes the oracles of Apollo 
as being “ partim falsa, partim casu vera, partim flexiloqua et obscura, ut interpres 
egeat interprete,” c. 56), represents the philosophy of his age when he denied the ex- 
istence of any such power: “ Nihil est tam contrarium rationi et constantie quam 
fortuna: ut mihi ne in Deum quidem cadere videatur, ut sciat, quid casu et fortuito 
futurum sit. Si enim scit, certe illud eveniet: sin certe eveniet, nulla fortuna est. 
Est autem fortuna. Rerum igitur fortuitarum nulla est preesensio.”—De Divinat. lib. 
ii.c. 7. From this we can at once see how forcibly, in those days, the plain fulfil- 
ment of an ancient prediction must have told upon an honest mind. Hence the ob- 
ject of the early Apologists, when they insist so repeatedly on th antiquity of the 
prophetic writings (Cf S. Justin M. Apol. i. § 31. p. 62; Tatian, Adv. Greecos, § 
xxxi; p. 268; Clemens Alex. (who quotes Tatian) Strom. 1. xxi p. 378, &.); while 
they further tell us that the proof of the fulfilment of Prophecy was the chief agent 
in their own conversion. Such was the statement of S. Justin M. to Trypho. The 
aged Christian who had instructed him, brought before him the words of the prophets. 
men—Oeiw Πνεύματι λαλήσαντες, καὶ τὰ μέλλοντα θεσπίσαντες, ἃ δὴ νῦν γίνεται.----- 
vii. p. 109. Theophilus of Antioch similarly describes the arguments by which he 
had been convinced: Μὴ οὖν ἀπίστει, ἀλλὰ πίστευε" Kai yap ἐγὼ ἠπίστουν τοῦτο ἔσεσθαι 
[scil. ἀνάστασιν], ἀλλὰ νῦν κατανοήσας αὐτὰ πιστεύω, ἅμα καὶ ἐπιτυχὼν ἱεραῖς γραφαῖς 
τῶν ἁγίων προφητῶν, οἱ καὶ προεῖπον διὰ Πνεύματος Θεοῦ τὰ προγεγονότα ᾧ τρόπῳ γέγονε, 
καὶ τὰ ἐνεστῶτα τίνι τρόπῳ γίνεται, καὶ τὰ ἐπερχόμενα ποίᾳ τάξει ἀπαρτισθήσεται. 
ἀπόδειξιν οὖν λαβὼν τῶν γινομένῶν καὶ προαναπεφωνημένων, οὐκ ἀπιστῶ: ἀλλὰ πιστεύω 
πειθαρχῶν Θεῷ.---αΑα Autolyc. lib. i. § 14. p. 346. The manner in which Tatian states 
this same fact is peculiarly forcible: περινοοῦντι δέ μοι τὰ σπουδαῖα, συνέβη γραφαῖς 
τισὶν ἐντυχεῖν βαρβαρικαῖς, πρεσβυτέραις μὲν, ὡς πρὸς τὰ Ελλήνων δόγματα, θειοτέραις 
δὲ ὡς πρὸς τὴν ἐκείνων πλάνην. Kai μοι πεισθῆναι ταύταις συνέβη διά τε τῶν λέξεων τὸ 
ἄτυφον, καὶ τῶν εἰπόντων τὸ ἀνεπιτήδευτον, καὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς ποιῴσεως τὸ εὐκατάληπ- 
τον, καὶ τῶν μελλόντων τὸ προγνωστικόν .—Adv Grecos, § 29. p. 267. 
Paley (“ Evidences,” part iii. ch. 5) gives another reason why the argument from 
Pronkecy was so much dwelt upon. He quotes S. Irenzeus, Tertullian, Origen, Lac- 
tanttzs, who agree in stating that the miracles of Christ were ascribed by the heathen 
to magi¢; observing that while these Apologists insist upon the force of the proof of 
Christianity from Miracles, they were compelled, in consequence of this objection, ta 
rely rather upon the evidence of Prophecy. Strange to say, Paley is inclined to con- 
demn “the judgment of the defenders” of Christianity for taking this course. I may 
remark that Arnobius (A. D. 298) forms an exception to this exclusive reliance upon 
the evidence of Prophecy: he lays much stress on Miracles in his work “‘ Adv. Gen- 
tes,” observing: “Nulla major est comprobatio quam gestarum ab Yo [Christo] fides 


212 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. | LECT. V 


This last allusion at once brings before us those proofs by 
which God’s servants, however silent as to their own inward feel- 
ings, have convinced the world of their Divine Commission. 
There must, clearly, be external, sensible proof given that any 
human being has been selected as a messenger of God. Without 
such proof we should have no evidence of the fact beyond the as- 
sertion of the individual himself who claims our belief.’ Reve- 
lation, therefore, has always been accompanied by certain indi- 
cations which evince that its source must be attributed to other 
faculties, and a higher power, than could have naturally charac- 
terized the agent by whom it has been conveyed. 

Two proofs, only, of this sensible nature are conceivable— 
Prophecy and Miracles. Prophecy, from its embracing at once 
events of which living men might judge,’ and the history of the 
far distant future, performs the function of a witness to every 
age. Miracles, by virtue of the Creative and Revealing Presence, 
apparent in them, offer to all conscientious minds the clearest of 
proofs. The language of unprejudiced reason must ever be— 
“ We know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no mau 
can do these miracles that thou doest except God be with him.” 


rerum, quam virtutum novitas,” &c.—Lib. i. ο. 42, ap. Routh, “ Script. Eccl. Opuse.” 
i 11 fo, OIL 

1 Scripture itself acknowledges the justice of this principle: “ Long time therefore 
abode they speaking boldly in the Lord, Which gave testimony (τῷ μαρτυροῦντι) unto 
the word of His grace, and granted signs and wonders (σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα) to be done 
by their hands.’—Acts, xiv. 3. So also of Prophecy: ‘“ When the word of the pro- 
phet shall come to pass, then shall the prophet be known that the Lord hath truly sent 
him.’—Jer. xxviii. 9. And thus Jeroboam acknowledges the Divine mission of Ahi- 
jah: “ Behold there is Ahijah the prophet, which told me that I should be king over 
this people.”—1 Kings, xiv. 2. 

2 Thus the prediction of ‘the man of God” that the altar at Bethel should be rent 
(1 Kings, xiii. 3; ef. ver. 5), was addressed to the generation then living; the ane 
nouncement of the reign of Josiah (ver. 2) was addressed to generations yet to come. 
To the same effect were the prediction of the death of Jeroboam’s child (1 Kings, xiv. 
12; cf. ver. 17), and the announcement of the future destruction of his race (ver. 10). 
Cf. too, Jer. xxviii. 16, 17. In this sense Origen argued that before the coming of 
the Messiah the inspiration of the Old Testament could not have been clearly proved ; 
but now the appearance of Christ has dispelled all doubts: ἐναργῆ wapadeiyyara περὶ 
τοῦ θεοπνεύστους εἶναι τὰς παλαιὰς γραφὰς πρὸ τῆς ἐπιδημίας τοῦ Χρίστοῦ παραστῆσαι ov 
πάνυ δυνατὸν ἦν" ἀλλ᾽ ἡ ᾿Ιησοῦ ἐπιδημία, δυναμένους ὑποπτεύεσθαι τὸν νόμον καὶ τοὺς 
προφήτας ὡς οὐ Θεῖα, εἰς τοὐμφανὲς ἤγαγεν, ὡς οὐρανίῳ χάριτι ἀναγεγραμμένα ..----1)}6 
Princip. lib. iv. ὕ. i. p. 161. 

3S. John, iii. 2: ef. 1 Kings, xvii. 22-24: “And the Lord heard “the voice of 
Elijah, and the soul of the child came unto him, and he revived. * * * And the 
woman said to Elijah, Now by this I know that ttou art a man of God, and that the 
word of the Lord in thy mouth is truth.” Bishop Hinds ingeniously observes: “ In 
the case of a person claiming to be commissioned with a message from God, the only 
proof which ought to be admitted is miraculous attestation of some sort. * * * 
The miracle, in these cases, is, in fact, a specimen of that violation of the ordMary 


LECT. V.] REVELATION AND INSPIRATION, 213 


Miracles both accredit those who work with them, as organs of 
God ; and seal as truth what such organs utter. This demon- 
strative power abides even in the record of the miracles, the 
truth of that record being assumed.’ That our minds can im- 
agine no other species of proof is shown by this circumstance, 
that these are invariably offered to us as tests, wherever claims, 
well or ill-founded, are made to Divine Inspiration, §. Paul con- 
siders such tokens to be as indispensable a requisite of an Apostle 
as they had been of the Old Testament prophets. ‘ Truly,” he 
argues, “‘ the signs of an Apostle were wrought among you in all 
patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.”* And so far 
is the claim of false prophets to the possession of such gifts from 
being any objection to their force as proofs, that it rather ex- 
hibits more clearly their validity. They are the only proofs 
given, because they are the only proofs admissible.’ It is true, 
that in the case of the authors of Scripture, there are many in- 
stances, in which, to our knowledge at least, such sensible proofs 
were not given. But that proofs were at all times given of a suf- 
ficiently overpowering kind to silence every reasonable doubt, and 
to remove every natural scruple, we have abundant reason to con- 
clude.“ Should any difficulty arise (on the part either of the 


course of nature, which the person inspired is asserting to have taken place in his ap- 
pointment and ministry; and corresponds to the exhibition of specimens and experi= 
ments, which we should require of a geologist, mineralogist, or chemist, if he asserted 
his discovery of any natiral phenomena—especially of any at variance with received 
theories.”—IJnspiration, p. 9. 

1 “ Single miracles are often said to have convinced eye-witnesses on the first 
publication of the Gospel.—John, vi. 14. ‘Then those men, when they had seen the 
miracle which Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that Prophet which should come 
into the world.’—So ch. ii. 11. The same Evangelist puts the miracles collectively 
for the written evidence to the future faith of the world: ‘Many other signs truly did 
Jesus in the presence of His disciples which are not written in this book; but these 
are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.’—xx. 30, 
31.”—Davison, On Prophecy, p. 406. 

2 2 Cor. xii. 12. 

3 See M. Athanase Coquerel, “Christianity,” p. 219. 

4 Take, e. g. the important event of the separation of Israel and Judah. Ahijah 
the Shilonite announced to Jeroboam, “ Thus saith the Lord, Behold I wil rend the 
kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give Ten Tribes to thee.”—1 Kings, 
xi. 31. That this prediction became notorious, and obtained general belief, we learn 
from the statement: “Solomon sought therefore to kili Jeroboam. And Jeroboam 
arose and fled into Egypt.”—ver. 40. After Rehoboam’s accession to the throne, 
“Tsrael rebelled against the house of David;”’ and Rehoboam “assembled all the 
house of Judah, with the Tribe of Benjamin, an hundred and fourscore thousand 
chosen men which were warriors, to fight against the house of Israel, to bring the 
kingdom again to Rehoboam.” ‘“ But the word of the Lord came to Shemaiah the 
man of God, saying, Thus saith the Lord, Ye shall not go up, nor fight against your 
brethrpn: return every man to his house; for this thing is done of Me. And they 


214 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION, [1ECT. v. 


agent himself when receiving his powers from God, or of those 
to whom his commission was addressed), as to whether the an- 
nouncement were really Divine, we are often informed of the 
means by which such difficulty was dispelled. To this effect 
were the signs given to Moses, to Gideon, to Hezekiah. On the 
other hand, when the sacred writers do not refer to Divine Reve- 
lation, or to the means by which it was imparted, we observe how 
carefully they indicate their clear appreciation of the fact, that 
ordinary dreams or visions are altogether valueless. The Psalmist, 
for example, writes: ‘As a dream when one awaketh ; so, Ὁ 
Lord, when Thou awakest, Thou shalt despise their image :”” 
while in the case of visions a broad line of distinction is drawn 
between the real communications which God thus conveyed to 
the mind, and the hallucinations of false prophecy, the worth- 
lessness of which is pointed out by Ezekiel: “Thus saith the 
Lord God, Woe unto the foolish prophets that follow their own 
spirit, and have seen nothing.” 

Intimations no less clear are also conveyed to us, from time 
to time, by the sacred writers, that the Divine Author of Scrip- 
ture exercised a constant supervision over their acts and words. 
Such intimations relate either to those cases in which the human 
agent, trusting to his previous participation in the Divine in- 
fluence, and relying upon his own judgment, presumes to decide 


obeyed the words of the Lord, and returned from going against Jeroboam.”—1 Kings, 
xii. 21; 2 Chron. xi. 4. Speaking of these two predictions Mr. Davison observes: 
“The agency of man had been prophetically foreshown in the one instance; it was 
authoritatively suspended in the other. A ferocious and self-willed king, who would 
take no counsel before the revolt, acquiesced, and all Judah with him, in the dictate 
of a prophet, after it. Why did he and his people so act except upon a conviction, 
which they could not resist, of that prophet’s authority? * * * J infer that they 
had reason to know Whose word it was which they obeyed.”—On Prophecy, p. 236. 
' Exod. iv. 1-9; Judges, vi. 36-40; 2 Kings, xx. 8-11. Of this nature was the 
confirmation which 8. Peter received as to the source and reality of his trance: 
“Whiie Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold three men seek 
thee,” &c.—Acts, x. 19: οὗ xii, 7-11. A striking example is afforded by an incident re- 
corded of Jeremiah. He had predicted, at God’s command, the subjection of his 
country by the Chaldeans. Immediately afterwards he is directed to act in a manner 
which seems to have excited not unreasonable doubts in his mind. The existence 
ot such doubts he clearly intimates, and he relates, with the most perfect simplicity, 
*hbe means by which they were dispelled: ‘“‘ And Jeremiah said, The word of the Lord 
‘same unto me, saying, Behold, Hanameel the son of Shallum, thine uncle shall come 
anto thee, saying, Buy thee my field that is in Anathoth, for the right of redemption 
Β thine to buy it. So Hanameel, mine uncle’s son, came to me in the court of the 
prison, according to the word of the Lord, and said unto me, Buy my field, I pray 
thee, &e. * * * Then I knew that this was the word of the Lord. And I boughi 

the field, &c.”—Jer. xxxii. 6-9. Cf. Zech. xi. 11. 

2 Pg. Ixxiii. 20. Cf Eccl. v. 7. 3 Ezek. xiii. 3. Cf supra, p. 207, note 3. 


LECT. V.] REVELATION AND INSPIRATION, 215 


without the immediate suggestion of the Holy Spirit ; or to those 
in which a line of action that we should otherwise have looked 
upon as purely natural, or as dictated by the circumstances of the 
( ae, 15 referred to the direct intervention of God. In such 
ustances the veil 18, as it were, withdrawn; and we are per- 
mitted to see how the Spirit of God acts upon, and guides the 
spirit of man. For example, in the Old Testament, when Sam- 
uel, in pursuance of the Divine command, was about to select 
the future king from among the sons of Jesse, following his own 
judgment, his choice was about to fall upon Eliab. But “ the 
Lord said unto him,” “1 have refused him.” When, at length, 
David is introduced, “ the Lord said, Arise, anoint him, for this 
is he.”’ Again, we read that David, when the Lord had given 
him peace from his enemies, called for Nathan the prophet, and 
said, ‘‘ Lo, I dwell in an house of cedars, but the Ark of the coy- 
enant of the Lord remaineth under curtains. Then Nathan said 
unto David, Do all that is thine heart ; for God is with thee,’ 
In this, his natural approval of the pious design of the king, 
Nathan acted on his own human judgment, and erred ; for “it 
came to pass the same night, that the word of God came to 
Nathan, saying, Go and tell David my servant, Thus saith the 
Lord, Thou shalt not build me an house to dwell in.” Similar 
instances, in which the human judgment of men, who acted as 
agents of the Divine commands, was thus controlled, are recorded 
in the New Testament. We read how ὃ. Paul had laid out tor 
himself a practical field of labor... He would have preached in 
Galatia, but “‘ was forbidden of the Holy Ghost.” He “assayed 

11 Sam. xvi. 6-12. 

? 28am. vii. 1 Chron. xvii, On this case 3. Gregory the Great observes: “ Alie 
quando prophet sancti dum consuluntur, ex magno usu prophetandi queedam ex suo 
spiritu proferunt, et se hac ex prophetise Spiritu dicere suspicantur. Sed quia sancti 
sunt, per Sanctum Spiritum citius correcti, et ab Eo que vera sunt audiunt, et 
semetipsos, quia falsa dixerint, reprehendunt.”—Jn Ezekiel, lib. 1. Hom. i. t. i p. 
1180. 

3 Acts, xvi. 6-10. “The manner in which Luke describes this hindrance is well 
calculated to bring to view the operation of the higher Πνεῦμα in the souls of the 
Apostles. The ψυχή of him, who had received the Holy Ghost, was in no way so 
identified with the Spirit as to take away a full consciousness of the distinction which 
existed; he could, on the contrary, very clearly distinguish the impulses of his own 
soul from the suggestion of the Spirit. The former often prompted (if not to what 
was sinful) to what was erroneous or unsuitable [see infra, p. 222, &e.]; the latter in 
such cases checked the soul in its activity, and guided it to what was right * * * 
In this passage ἐπείραζον describes the natural impulse of the ψυχή ; οὐκ εἴασεν αὐτούς 


the restraining agency of the far-seeing Spirit.”—Olshausen, Comment in loc. B. ii. 
4 829. 


216 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. [LEOT. v. 


to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit suffered him not.” And when 
he paused, doubting where God’s will would lead him, “ a vision 
appeared to Paul in the night : There stood a man of Macedonia, 
and prayed him, saying, Come over into Macedonia, and help us. 
And after he had seen the vision,” continues the sacred historian, 
“immediately we endeavored to go into Macedonia, assuredly 
gathering that the Lord had called us for to preach the Gospel 
unto them.” The history of 8. Paul affords another instance of 
the constancy of this Divine supervision ;—an instance which, 
taken in connexion with those already adduced, warrants our con- 
cluding, as a just and natural inference, that, in other cases also 
where such information may not be expressly given, the servants 
of God were in like manner specially guided and directed by Him, 
In the account of the controversy respecting circumcision we are 
told that the Church of Antioch “determined that Paul and 
Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem 
unto the Apostles and elders about this question.” Here every- 
thing appears natural, and what might have been expected. 
There was a division in a certain branch of the Church upon an 
important question ; and it was resolved to refer the matter to 
the Apostles. Had this entire discussion been conducted by mere 
human wisdom, this was precisely the course which we should 
have anticipated. Without some express intimation, therefore, 
from Scripture itself, we could not, perhaps, have safely ventured 
to maintain, that each step in this matter was regulated by the 
immediate guidance of the Holy Spirit. But of this fact we have 
special information. §. Paul himself tells us, that his journey to 
Jerusalem was not the mere result of his or the Church’s human 
judgment. He writes expressly, that he “ went up” to Jerusalem 
“by Revelation.” 

But another topic of the utmost moment must be referred to 
before we close this branch of our inquiry. In order to preserve 
the due subordination of the human to the Divine element of the 
Bible, it is altogether essential that we should bear in mind the 
distinction between that extraordinary influence under which the 


- Acts, xv. 2. 

3. Gal. ii 2. ᾿Ανέβην δὲ κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν. Cf. S. Luke, ii 26, 27, where Simeon’s 
presence in the Temple, which from his character (ver. 25) might have appeared a 
pirely natural circumstance, is ascribed to the special guidance of the Holy Ghost 
“He came by the Spirit (ἐν Πνεύμστι) into the Temple.” 


LECT. V.] REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. 217 


sacred writers have composed their respective works, and that 
ordinary actuation by the Holy Spirit, to which in like manner 
the term Inspiration’ has been assigned. From neglecting or re- 
fusing to discriminate between these two aspects of the Divine 
agency, a greater number, perhaps, of erroneous views with re- 
spect to our present subject have taken their rise, than from any 
other source. In illustration of the importance of attending to 
the distinction which exists between the two classes of spiritual 
vifts, I would adduce an observation of a well-known writer, 
whose statements have been considerably embarrassed by his 
having continued to regard as identical these specifically differ- 
ent phases of the operations of the Holy Ghost. Dr. Arnold, 
when enumerating certain inferences relating to Inspiration 
which he considers ‘‘ unwarranted,” goes on to say: ‘It is no 
less an unwarranted interpretation of the term ‘Inspiration’ to 
suppose that it is equivalent to a communication of the Divine 
perfections, Surely, many of our words and many of our actions 
are spoken and done by the inspiration of God’s Spirit, without 
Whom we can do nothing acceptable to God. Yet does the 
Holy Spirit so inspire us as to communicate to us His own per- 
fections ? Are our best words or works utterly free from error or 
from sin? All inspiration does not, then, destroy the human 
and fallible part in the nature which it inspires; it does not 
change man into God.”* The result, which legitimately follows 
from this confusion of the two significations conveyed by the 


1 My object here is to prove that these two significations of the word ‘ Inspira- 
thon’ are specifically distinct; denoting operations of the same Divine Spirit which 
differ in kind, as well as in degree. On the other hana, their identity in kind is con- 
tinually laid down as a great principle in treatises on tris subject. Thus, in an essay 
often quoted, entitled “ De revelatione Religionis externs, eademque publica,” by C. 
L. Nitzsch (Lipsize, 1808), one of the theses maintained is—‘“ Quod inspiratio Apos- 
tolorum ejusdem plane generis fuit cum revelatione interna, que reliquis omnibus vert 
nominis Christianis contigisse dicitur : where, for “generis,” ‘ speciei” should, strictly 
speaking, be substituted; as appears from the further remark: ‘‘ Minime negamus 
gradu diversam, sive modo et mensura potiorem fuisse Apostolorum inspirationem.”— 
p. 67. See infra, p. 226, note *. 

2 “Tf a single error can be discovered [in Scripture], it is supposed to be fatal to 
the credibility of the whole. This has arisen from an unwarranted interpretation of , 
the word ‘Inspiration,’ and by a still more unwarranted inference. An inspired work 
is supposed to mean a work to which God has communicated His own perfections; so 
that the slightest error or defect of any kind in it is inconceivable, and that which is 
other than perfect in all points cannot be inspired. This is the unwarranted inter- 
pretation of the word ‘Inspiration.’ ”"—Sermons on the Christian Life, ed. 1841, 
p. 486. 

8. Sermons on the Chr'stian Life, p. 487. 


218 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. [LECT. v. 


word ‘Inspiration,’ is exemplified by Dr. Arnold himself when 
speaking of the pre-eminent inspiration of 8. Paul. He observes 
—‘“Yet this great Apostle expected that the world would come 
to an end in the generation then existing. * *™ * Shall we 
then say that S. Paul entertained and expressed a belief which 
the event did not verify ? We may say so, safely and reverently, 
in this instance.” 

Another aspect—attended with consequences if possible more 
important—under which this same misconception presents itself, 
is that of regarding the degree of authority due to the several 
parts of Scripture as depending upon the personal qualities of 
their respective authors, or the opportunities of acquiring infor- 
mation which they possessed, One modern theory of Inspiration, 
for example, makes the possession of religious Truth by the 
Apostles to depend on the measure of their sinlessness ; while 
another estimates the Divine character of Scripture by the rela- 
tion in which its authors stood to Christ. From this latter view 
it results, we are further told, that a distinction is to be drawn 
between the different parts of the New Testament ; and that 
higher authority must be ascribed to the writings of the Apostles, 
than to those portions of it which have been composed by their 
disciples and assistants :—hence it follows that the Gospels of S. 


1 Ibid. p. 488, See Lecture iv. p. 180, note. A still greater degree of confusion 
is to be traced in the language of Mr. Coleridge. ‘‘The main error,” according to 
him, of the principle maintained by the assertors of ‘“ Bibliolatry’—“ consists in the 
confounding of two distinct conceptions, revelation by the Eternal Word, and actua- 
tion of the Holy Spirit. The former, indeed, is not always or necessarily united with 
the latter,—the prophecy of Balaam is an instance of the contrary—but yet being 
ordinarily, and only not always, so united, the term, Inspiration, has acquired a double 
sense. First, the term is used in the sense of Information miraculously communicated 
by voice or vision [here Mr. Coleridge confounds Revelation and Inspiration]; and 
secondly, where, without any sensible addition or infusion, the writer or speaker uses 
and applies his existing gifts of power and knowledge under the predisposing, aiding, 
aid directing actuation of God’s Holy Spirit. Now, between the first sense, that is, 
inspired revelation, and the highest degree of that grace and communion with the 
Spirit which the Church under all circumstances, and every regenerate member of 
the Church of Christ, is permitted to hope, and instructed to pray for—there is a 
positive difference of kind,—a chasm, the pretended overleaping of which constitutes 
imposture, or betrays insanity. Of the first kind are the Law and the Prophets. 
* κι But with regard to the second, neither the holy writers—the so-called 
Hagiographi [i. e. Job, David, Solomon, Jeremiah in the Lamentations, Daniel, &.]— 
themselves, nor any fair interpretations of Scripture, assert any such absolute diversity, 
or enjoin the belief of any greater difference of degree, than the experience of the 
Christian World grounded on, and growing with the comparison of these Scriptures 
with other works holden in honor by the Churches, has established.”-- Confessions 
of an Inquiring Spirit, Letter vii. p. 94. 


LECT, v.] REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. 219 


Mark and 8. Luke possess less authority than those of 8. Mat- 
thew or 8. John.’ 

With reference to the principle on which such theories are 
founded, there is, it is true, a certain sense in which we may 


? The writer who first suggested this view in modern times was, I believe, Dr. 
George Benson, in an “ Essay concerning Inspiration,” to be found in Bishop Watson’s 
collection of Theological Tracts (vol iv. p. 469), and which was received with much 
applause in Gemany. Of. Téllner, “Die goéttliche Hingebung,” s. 69, u.s. 127. Dr. 
Benson considers the degree of Inspiration possessed by the Apostles to have been 
the highest under the New Testament: it may be called Gradus Apostolicus, as the 
Jews called that which Moses had under the Old Testament Gradus Mosaicus. (See 
supra, Lecture ii. p. 61) Hence he infers that the Gospels of S. Mark and 8. Luke 
are inferior in authority to the writings of the Apostles. Schleiermacher and his 
school have derived the same result from their peculiar principles. Schleiermacher, 
in his ‘Critical Essay on the Gospel of S. Luke,” objecting to the notion that “the 
agency of the Holy Spirit in the composition of the Scriptures is of a specific kind, 
distinct from its working in the universal Church, and from its general agency in the 
disciples of Christ,” draws the following distinction: ‘‘ There is first the agency of the 
Divine Spirit in those who were witnesses of the events, and heard and reported the 
speeches of Christ. * * * In the second place, there is the agency of the Spirit 
in the persons who collected and digested. * * * Now, if the compiler of our 
Gospel [S. Luke’s] was one of whom it may seem doubtful whether, as he does not 
belong to the number of the Twelve. an extraordinary influence of the Spirit can, with 
propriety, be attributed to him, it is, at all events, safer that he should appear as the 
compiler and arranger only, not as the author, and that we should have to look for the 
first and largest portion of the extraordinary agency, not in him, but only in those who 
stood in immediate connexion with the Redeemer.”—Preface, (Thirlwall’s transl. 
p. iv.) Tholuck describes some other modifications of this view. “If a less degree 
of authority belong to the writings of the Apostles’ disciples than to those of the 
Apostles themselves, the question arises, what degree of difference exists between 
the illumination of both? and consequently between their normative authority? 
* * * A fundamental inquiry concerning this topic must proceed from the de- 
termination of the manner in which the consciousness of truth has existed.in Christ 
Himself. The dogmatic system (die Dogmatik) of Schleiermacher has placed this 
question, in a peculiar manner, in connexion with the doctrine of the sinlessness of 
Christ. * * * Proceeding from Schleiermacher’s stand-point, Elwert makes the 
possession of religious truth in the Apostles, too, to depend on the measure of their 
sinlessness; while Twesten (in whom the views of Schleiermacher retire before the 
interest of supernaturalism), proves the Inspiration of the Apostles to be free from 
error, in consequence of its destination for the Church.’—Comm. zum Br. an die 
Hebr., Kinleit. kap vi. s. 87. The natural remark suggests itself, that if Inspiration, 
in its only true sense, be confined to the Apostles, why do we not receive many other 
writings, in addition to those of S. Luke, or 8. Mark, or the Epistle of S. James, &e., 
as in like manner canonical? (Cf. Lecture ii. p. 56, note *.) Twesten notices this 
point as follows: “If all Christians have the Holy Ghost (as Scripture teaches), can 
then every religious statement of a Christian be called inspired? But we make a 
dtstinction between Apostolic writings and others,—between Inspiration and Chris- 
tian illumination; although this, too, must be looked upon rather as gradual than 
specific. For of a specific contrast between the Apostles and other Christians, Scrip- 
ture says nothing, but only of the distinction between them and the world (John, 
xiv. 17): so that we shall not go astray if we suppose Inspiration to be some- 
thing analogous to illumination.— Vorlesungen, i. 5, 407. Although, he continues, 
the disciples of the Apostles ‘‘stand a degree lower than the Apostles, still we 
must place them higher, speaking generally, than other enlightened Christians” 
(e. g. “Clemens, Ignatius, Polyearp, who had seen, no doubt, individuals of the 
Apostles, but had scarcely associated long with them.”)—Jbid. p. 412. “The nearer 
Or more remote connexion with Christ, as the centre of our Faith, presents a mea- 
sure according to which we can distinguish what is to be deemed more or less 


229 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. [LECT. τ. 


say that an analogy subsists between the manner in which the 
Holy Spirit has actuated the sacred writers, and His influence 
on believers in general: for in neither case are certain attri- 
butes, with which man has been gifted, suppressed, or obliter- 
ated. Thus, in the case of each inspired penman, as I have 
repeatedly argued, that type of thought, and those personal cha- 
racteristics which he inherited from nature, are still retained, 
and may be traced in every page of his writings. Hven when 
acting officially as organs of the Holy Spirit, the agents chosen 
exhibit styles quite dissimilar,—they pursue different paths of 
teaching,—they grasp the Truth from different sides : such indi- 
vidual peculiarities being, in fact, the means which God has em- 
ployed for the purpose of exhibiting and developing the different 
phases of Divine Truth. Again, in their ordinary life, and when 
not acting oficialiy, there does not appear to have been any dis- 
tinction (at least in kind) between the Divine guidance which 
the authors of Scripture enjoyed, and that in which all Christians 
share. We see 8. Peter, forexample, still ardent and impetuous, 
still sensitive to the breath of human disapproval ; we see 8. 
John still exhibiting the same union of deep love and burning 
zeal, Here therefore, a certain analogy exists ; but here, also, 
all analogy ceases." When acting directly under the impulse 
of the Holy Spirit as oficial ministers of the Kingdom of God, 
we cannot admit that either imperfection in conduct, or fallibility 


essential for Christian consciousness, and, therefore, more mediately, or immediately, 
under the influence of the Holy Ghost.” Hence, argues Twesten, is to be derived 
the distinction between the Old and New Testaments, and also between the writings 
of the Apostles and their disciples,—‘ between that which has been spoken or 
written in the name of Christ, in the consciousness of the call received from Him,— 
and what has been produced, to a certain degree, in the writer’s own name, and oc 
casioned by more personal relations and objects.”—Jbid. 8. 421. 

It is interesting to observe (as illustrating the fact that Christianity has had to 
encounter, from the very first, the same difficulties which modern criticism prides 
itself on having originated), that this objection against the authority of the Gospels 
of S. Luke and 5, Mark was urged by the earliest of heretics—the Marcionites: M. 
Μάρκον καὶ Λουκᾶν οὐδὲ ἔσχε μαθητὰς ὁ Χριστός" ἐντεῦθεν ἐέγχεσθε φάλσα 
ποιοῦντες. διὰ τί γὰρ οἱ μαθηταὶ, ὦν γέγραπται τὰ ὀνόματα ἔν τῷ Ὁὐαγγελίῳ, οὐκ 
ἔγραψαν, ἀλλ᾽ οἱ μὴ ὄντες pabntai.—Dial. de recta in Deum fide, Sect. i. ap. 
Origenis Opp. t. i. p. 806.) The voice of the Church, in opposition to all such views, 
may be expressed in the words of 8. Augustine: ‘Divina Providentia procuratum 
est per Spiritim Sanctum, ut quibusdam etiam ex illis qui primos Apostolos seque- 
bantur, non solum annuntiandi, verum etiam scribendi Evangelium tribuereter auc- 
teritas. Hi sunt Marcus et Lucas.”.—De Consens. Evang., lib. i. 1. t. ili. pars ii. p. 3.- 

1 T have here adopted some remarks of Mr. Alford in the Prolegomena to his edi- 
tion of the Greek Testament (vol. i. ch. i, sect. vi). I cannot, however, accept many 
of the observations with which they are accompanied. 


LECT. V.] REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. 929] 


in teaching, has adhered to the authors of Scripture. It is true, 
that to Christ alone was “the Spirit given without measure ;” 
to the sacred writers His influence was communicated but par- 
tially :—it was only in their character of official teachers’ that the 
Lord promised His Disciples that perfection which the immediate 
guidance of the Holy Ghost implies. Nor do they themselves 
ever base their claim to Inspiration upon the degree of sinless- 
ness which they possessed.” §. Paul, who, when he speaks as a 
teacher to the Thessalonians, thanks God “that they received 
the word of God which they heard of him, not as the word of 
men, but as it is in truth, the word of God,”* speaks to the Phi- 
lippians of his personal attainments with great humility. ‘“‘ He 
had not already attained, nor was he already perfect.”* Nay, his 
remark in this latter epistle as to those who preach Christ of 
envy and strife— that whether in pretence or in truth, Christ 
is preached, and I therein do rejoice ; yea, and will rejoice,’”*— 
of itself proves that certain truths can come home with convin- 
cing and life-imparting power to the souls of men, independently 
of the personal excellence of him who communicates them. 
Hence it was that 8. Peter, who, in his vocation as a witness 


? We are clearly told that, in the discharge of such duties, the influence of the 
Spirit was felt in a peculiar manner. E. g. when brought before the Jewish Council 
“Peter filled with the Holy Ghost (πλησθεὶς Πνεύματος ‘Ayiov), said unto them,” 
&c.— Acts, iv. 8; cf. ver. 31. Again: when rebuking Elymas, ὥς Paul, “filled with the 
Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him, and said,” &c.—xiii. 9; and thus he exhorts the 
Ephesians to pray for him ‘‘that utterance may be given unto him.”—Eph. vi. 19. 
“One may find a difficulty in the fact that Paul had certainly received, once for all, 
the Holy Ghost, and with it also the full power of utterance, so that he needed for 
this no request of the Church. But the agency of the Holy Ghost in the Apostles 
is not to be conceived as a permanently operating power, but as a power which re- 
vealed itself, at different times, in different degrees and forms of activity.”—Olshausen, 
Comment. in loc. B. iv. s. 300. Of. Acts, xvi. 6, and supra, p. 215, note * So, too, 
in the case of the Apostles’ power of working miracles, the manifestation of their 
supernatural gifts was not left to their own discretion. S. Paul could strike Elymas 
blind, because, as we have just seen, he was so directed by the Spirit; but he could 
not miraculously restore to health Epaphroditus, his “ brother and companion in 
labor” (Phil. ii. 25-27): he had the spirit of prophecy as to Antichrist (2 Thess. ii. 3), 
and he was enabled to predict the safety and fate of his fellow-travellers (Acts, 
xxvii. 24-26); but he could not foresee what was to befall himself, when about to 
encounter persecution, or when suffering imprisonment (Acts, xx. 22, 23; Phil. i. 
1-25; ii. 17). But see infra, Lecture vi. 

? On this whole question see the very remarkable treatise of Dr. J. C. F. Steudel, 
entitled “ Ueber Inspiration der Apostel,” published in the second and third parts 
of the “ Tiibinger Zeitschrift fiir Theologie,” for the year 1832; and directed prin- 
cipally against the theory of Elwert already referred to, p. 219, note. 

* 1 Thess. ii. 13. Ὁ od ov Eb π|. 12.1.3: 

® Phil. i. 15, 18. Cf. Steudel, loc. cit. ἘΠ. iii. s. 18. 

* “When Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was 
to be blamed. For before that certain came from James (observe τινὲς ἀ πὸ lak. 


222 REVELATIUN AND INSPIRATION. [LECT. V. 


to Christ, was furnished by successive revelations with unclouded 
knowledge respecting the relation of Jews and Gentiles, in his 
vocation as a Christian man could become untrue to his own 
knowledge and testimony. In that testimony is to be found the 
condemnation of his acts ; although his acts could not overthrow 
his testimony.’ Indeed 8. Paul, in his whole address on this sub- 
ject, appeals to the previous conduct of his brother Apostle in 
opposition to that Apostle’s present conduct: “If I build again 
the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.” It 
is strange, no doubt, how the Judaizing Christians-were able to 
exercise so great an influence over ὃ. Peter and 8. Barnabas : but 
the fact that the proceedings of all parties are expressly ascribed 
to “ dissimulation,”® taken in connexion with the principle laid 
down on another occasion by ὃ. Paul, ‘‘ We also are men of 
like passions with you,’”*—denotes clearly that the Apostles. did 
not cease, after receiving their spiritual impulse from above, to 
be frail human beings. Like the ‘“‘ men of God” under the Old 
Testament, they also carried their treasure ‘‘ in earthen vessels :”* 
whether Prophets or Apostles, the authority of the doctrines of- 
ficially declared was independent of the measure of their personal 
holiness, and rested on the purely objective communication to 
them of the Truth from on high. The only supposition on which 
the authority of Scripture could be affected by such facts as the 
error of 8. Peter would be if that error had been inserted as truth. 
Its exposure, on the other hand, proves the purity of the record ; 
while it also shows how God has ever provided’ that His inspired 
Word should not suffer through the error of an individual ; but 
i. 6. from the Church at Jerusalem over which S. James presided,—not persons com- 
missioned by him, which would require ὑ x 6, or παρά] he did eat with the Gentiles ; 
but when they were come he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which 
were of the cireumcision.”—Gal. ii. 11, 12. 

1 See Beck, “‘ Propid. Entwicklung,” 5. 231. 2 Gal. ii. 18. 

8 “The other Jews dissembled likewise with him (συνυπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ); inso- 
much that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation (αὐτῶν τῇ ὑπο- 
kpicet).”—ver. 13. On this ‘‘dissimulation” see supra, Lecture ii. p. 16. Olshausen 
remarks: “ Peter aught quite correctly, and had not at all misapprehended the decree 
of the Council [Acts, xv.]; he merely acted weakly, because he allowed himself to be 
intimidated. His error was, therefore, a purely personal one, and one by which his 
official character as an Apostle was uot in the least compromised. With reference 
to his personal character, it is meanwhile remarkable that he, the Rock (der Fel- 
senmann), could here too be overcome by fear, as formerly when he denied the 
Lord.”— Comment. iib. Gal. ii. 11-13, B. iv. 5. 46. 

* “Ομοιοπαθεῖς----Αοἴβ, xiv. 15. 


* For example, Jonah; “The man of God,” in 1 Kings, xiii 1, &. 
Cf. sup1a, τι 215, the cases of Samuel and Nathan. 


LECT. V.] REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. 223 


that, if the occasion required, a corrective should be supplied by 
the instrumentality of others. In a word, the promised impar- 
tation of the Holy Ghost to the Apostles had not the object of 
making them morally perfect, but simply that of raising them in 
their teaching to be infallible organs of the Truth. A single re- 
mark of 8. Augustine, when discussing this very question, con- 
tains the pith of the whole matter. In reply to the objection 
that ὃ. Paul, by circumcising Timothy, had himself committed 
the error which he censured in §. Peter, 8S. Augustine observes : 
“1 do not now inquire how he acted ; I seek what he has writ- 
ten.” 

It seems difficult to understand how the opinion could ever 
have been entertained that the deference due to the different com- 
ponents of the Bible is to be measured by the personal qualities 
of their respective authors. That opinion, surely, has no warrant 
in the language of Scripture. §. Paul interrupts his discourse 
on the subject of miraculous gifts, contained in the twelfth and 
fourteenth chapters of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, in 
order to lay down, in the most express manner, that such gifts 
could exist without “love :’—‘‘ Though I have the gift of pro- 
phecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge ; and 
though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and 
have not charity, I am nothing.” Christ Himself declares : 


1 §. Paul ‘took and circumcised Timothy because of the Jews which were in 
those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek” (Acts. xvi. 3). S. 
Augustine’s remark is: ‘‘ Non est, inquis, credibile hoc in Petro Paulum, quod ipse 
Paulus fecerat, arguisse. Non nunc inguiro quid fecerit ; quid scripserit quero. * * * 
Si autem verum scripsit Paulus, verum est, quod Petrus non recte tune ingrediebatur 
ad veritatem Evangelii. Id ergo faciebat, quod facere non debebat: et si tale aliquid 
Paulus ipse jam fecerat, correctum potius etiam ipsum credam co-apostoli sui correc- 
tionem non potuisse negligere, quam mendaciter aliquid in sua Epistola posuisse ; et 
in Epistola qualibet: quanto magis in illa, in qua preelocutus ait, ‘Quze autem scribo 
vobis, ecce coram Deo quia non mentior’? [scil. Gal. i 20]..—Ad S. Hieron. Ep. 
exit pa 191. 

Equally strong is the judicious remark of Tertullian: “Ceterum si reprehensus 
est Petrus, quod cum convixisset ethnicis, postea se a convictu eorum separabat per- 
sonarum respectu: utique conversationis fuit vitium non preedicationis.”—De Presor. 
Her. § 23, p. 239. 

7 1 Cor. xiii. 2. This is but a single instance of the fact that, although there is 
but “the same Spirit,” there are, at the same time, those “diversities of gifts” 
(διαιρέσεις χαρισμάτων), which S. Paul had just explained in ch. xii. 4-6,—a passage 
which Mr. Alford thus excellently paraphrases: ‘‘ But (as contrasted to this absolute 
unity, in ground and principle, of all spiritual influence), there are varieties of gifts 
(χαρίσματα = eminent endowments of individuals, in and by which the Spirit in- 
dwelling in them manifested Himself—the φανέρωσις τοῦ Πνεύματος in each man), 
but the same Sy irit (as their Bestower). And there are varieties of ministries (ap- 
pointed services in the Church in which as their channels of manifestation the 


224 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION, [LECT. ¥. 


“Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not 
prophesied in Thy name, and in Thy name done many wonder- 
ful works ? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew 
you !”" 

From what has been just said it will appear that the char- 
acter of that Divine influence, under which the Bible has been 
composed, was absolutely unique, and specifically different from 
those preventing and assisting graces of the Holy Ghost which 
have been the gift of Christ to His Church. I have not, for ob- 
vious reasons, thought it advisable to lay aside the established 
theological term, or to substitute for ‘ Inspiration’ the word ‘ The- 


χαρίσματα would work), but the same Lord (Christ, the Lord of the Church, Whose 
it is to appoint all ministrations in it); and varieties of operations (effects of Divine 
ἐνέργειαι), and the same God, Who works all of them in all persons (all the yapiouara 
in all who are gifted). Thus we have God the Father, the first source and operator 
of all spiritual influence in all: God the Son, the Ordainer in His Church of all min- 
istries by which this influence may be legitimately brought out for edification: Ged 
the Holy Ghost, dwelling and working in the Church, and effectuating in each man 
such measure of His gifts as He sees fit.” 

The distribution of those gifts is thus described by the Apostle: ‘To one is given 
by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge; to another 
faith; to another the gifts of healing; to another the working of miracles; to an- 
other prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues ; 
to another the interpretation of tongues. But all these worketh (ἐνεργεῖ) that one 
and the self-same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as He will.”—ver. 8-11. The 
case of the Tyrian prophets, already quoted (Lecture i. p. 43), affords a striking illus- 
tration of this division of “spiritual gifts.” On the other hand, in the persons of the 
different authors of Scripture, as such, those various gifts were combined and co- 
operated. Cf. their union in the persons of the Apostles after Pentecost, when they 
spoke with tongues, performed miracles, expounded, taught, &c., &e. In this fact 
consisted the pre-eminence of such men over all others:—érav οὖν ἀκούσῃς (writes 
S. Chrysostom), πρῶτον ἀποστόλους, δεύτερον προφήτας, τρίτον ποιμένας καὶ διδασκά- 
λους, χαρίσματα ἐαμάτων, ἀντιλήψεις, κυβερνήσεις, γένη γλωσσῶν, μάθε ὅτι πᾶσα ἤ 
χορηγία τῶν λοιπῶν χαρισμάτων, ὧσπερ ἐν κεφαλῇ, τῇ ᾿Αποσ- 
τολῇ évaroKkettat,—Homil. de util. lect. Script. t. 1). p. 77. For some additional 
remarks on this subject, see Appendix K. : 

1S. Matt. vii. 22, 23. The remarks of 8. Thomas Aquinas on this subject are as 
profound as they are philosophical. He is discussing the question: ‘“ Utrum bonitas 
morum requiratur ad Prophetiam.” After stating the arguments urged in support 
of the affirmative, he adds: ‘Sed contra est, quod Matt. vii. 22, his qui dixerant: 
‘Domine, nonne in nomine tuo prophetavimus?’ respondetur: ‘ Nunquam novi vos.’ 
‘Novit? autem ‘Dominus eos qui sunt Hjus,’ ut dicitur 2 ad Timoth. ii. 19. Ergo 
prophetia potest esse in his qui non sunt Dei per gratiam. * * * Prophetia 
potest esse sine charitate: quod apparet ex duobus. Primo, quidem, ex actu utriusque. 
Nam Prophetia pertinet ad intellectum, cujus actus preecedit actum voluntatis, quam 
perficit caritas: unde et Apostolus, 1. ad Cor. xiii, Prophetiam connumerat aliis ad _ 
intellectum pertinentibus, quz possunt sine caritate haberi. Secundo, ex fine utrius- 
que: datur enim Prophetia ad utilitatem ecclesiz, sicut et alize gratize gratis date, se- 
cundum illud Apostoli 1 ad Corinth. xii. 7: ‘Unicuique datur manifestatio Spiritus ad 
utilitatem.’ Non autem ordinatur directe ad hoc quod affectus ipsius Prophetz con- 
jungatur Deo, ad quod ordinatur caritas. Et ideo Prophetia potest esse sine bonitate 
morum, quantum ad propriam radicem hujus bonitatis."—Summ. Theoi., 2da 24:6, qu. 
elxxii. art. 4. t. xxiii, γι 301. 


LECT. V.] REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. 225 


opneustia,’ which many writers seem inclined to prefer." The 
distinction, however, to which I have adverted must be carefully 
borne in mind. The inspiration of the authors of the Bible was 
an energy altogether objective, and directed to supply the wants 
of the Church. The inspiration of the Christian is altogether 
subjective, and directed to the moral improvement of the indi- 
vidual,? The sacred narrative decides this question. The his- 
tories of David’ and Solomon, of Balaam* and Jonah,°* of the 


1 The word ‘Theopneustia’ has been formed from the adjective θεόπνευστος, which 
8. Paul applies to the Old Testament Scriptures—see infra, Lecture vi. The term 
‘Inspiratio’ seems to have been used from the earliest times as expressive of the 
Holy Ghost’s agency in the composition of Scripture. Thus the Vulgate translates 
2 Tim. iii. 16—“Omnis Scriptura divinitus inspirata” (θεόπνευστος): and again 2 
S. Pet. i 21—“Spiritu Sancto inspirati (φερόμενοι), locuti sunt sancti Dei homines.” 
The substantive occurs in its version of Job, xxxii. 8, “‘ Spiritus est in hominibus, et 
inspiratio Omnipotentis (“iv maw2) dat intelligentiam ;” where the LXX. has πνοὴ δὲ 
Παντοκράτορος. The Vulgate, however, translates the same phrase in Job, xxxiii. 4, 
by “spiraculum Omniyotentis;” by which it also renders 77202—“‘the breath of life” 
(Gen. ii. 7). See Téltaer, “ Die gottl. Hingebung,” 8. 85 ff. 

2 As further exemplifying this principle, it may not be amiss to observe that the 
influence of the Holy Spirit, in this sense, is represented in Scripture as the distinctive 
gift of the Christiun dispensation. Our Lord has, indeed, expressly declared that the 
Holy Ghost co-operated in the composition of the Old Testament (“ How then doth 
David in Spirit—év Πνεύματι----ΟὉ}} Him Lord,” &¢e.—S. Matt. xxii. 43); but we also 
read again: ‘“ This spake He of the Spirit (wep? τοῦ Πνεύματος), which they that be- 
lieve on Him should receive (ὃ ἔμελλον λαμβάνειν): for the Holy Ghost WAS NOT YET 
(οὔπω γὰρ ἣν Uvedpa) because that Jesus was not yet glorified.” —S. John, vii. 39. 
Cf. the saying of Christ: “Verily I say unto you, among them that are born of 
women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist [‘‘ A prophet? yea, I say 
unto you and more thansa prophet’—ver. 9]: notwithstanding, he that is least in the 
Kingdom of Heaven is greater than he.”—S. Matt. xi. 11. 

3 Referring to the occasion on which S. Paul had rebuked S. Peter, the question is 
put hypothetically by S. Augustine: ‘“ At enim satius est credere, apostolum Paulum 
aliquid non vere scripsisse, quam apostolum Petrum non recté aliquid egisse.” To 
which he replies: “‘ Hoe si ita est; dicamus (quod absit) satius esse credere mentiri 
Evangelium, quam negatum esse a Petro Christum; et mentiri Regnorum librum 
quam tantum Prophetam, a Domino Deo tam excellenter electum, et in concupiscenda 
atque abducenda uxore aliena commisisse adulterium.” * * * Immo vero Sanctam 
Seripturam, in summo et celesti auctoritatis culmine collocatam, de veritate ejus certus 
et securus legam * * * potius quam, facta humana dum in quibusdam laudabilis 
excellentize personis aliquando credere timeo reprehendenda, ipsa divina eloquia mihi 
sint ubique suspecta.—Ad Hieron. Ep. \xxxii. t. ii, p. 191. 

4 §, Augustine observes as to Balaam’s character: “ Postea illi et angelus loquitur, 
arguens et improbans ejus viam: quo viso tamen exterritus adoravit. Deinde ire 
permissus est, ut jam per ipsum prophetia clarissima proferretur. Nam omnino per- 
missus non est dicere quod volebat, sed quod virtute Spiritus cogebatur. Et ipse 
quidem reprobus mansit.”— Quest. in Num. xlviii. lib. iv. t. ili, p. 649. 8. Ambrose 
writes as follows: “Sed non mireris infusum auguri a Domino quod. loqueretur, 
quando infusum legis in Evangelio etiam principi Synagoge: [scil. Caiaphz] uni ex 
persequentibus Christum, quia oportet unum hominem mori pro populo. In quo nou 
prophetize meritum, sed adsertio veritatis est; ut adversariorum testimonio mani- 
festaretur, quo perfidia non credentium vocibus suorum augurum redargueretur.”— 
Hist. 1. t. ii. p. 994. 

δ᾽ The case of Jonah illustrates, in a striking manner, the distinction which our 
Lord has drawn between “a prophet” and “ἃ righteous man’—the chief forms of 


15 


226 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. [LECT. V. 


disobedient Prophet’ and 8. Peter himself, all prove that personal 
excellence is not essential to the due reception, and perfect trans- 
mission of God’s Revelation. Whatever may have been our an- 
ticipations on this subject, such facts cannot be disputed ; and 
a moment’s consideration will show that the fullest recognition 
of them not only does not derogate from, but, on the contrary, 
establishes the supreme authority of the Bible. On any other 
view, however we may exalt the personal excellence of the sa- 
cred writers, in that same degree must we diminish the obliga- 
tion to regard what they have written as infallible. Infallibility 
does not admit of degrees. Now there was but ONE Who “ was 
in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.”” When- 
ever, therefore, we attempt to estimate the amount of deference 
due to Holy Scripture by the amount of moral perfection to 
which its various authors have attained, we can no longer refuse 
to admit that imperfect views of doctrine, and partial, if not 
erroneous, representations of facts may—nay, must—exist in 
its pages ; for we are at once encountered by the argument, the 
truth of which experience proves, and Scripture itself teaches, 
that the brightest purity, if enshrined in merely human form, 
will yet be clouded by the shadow which still rests upon the gates 
of Paradise.” 


Old Testament piety: ‘‘He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall 
receive a prophet’s reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man, in the name of a 
righteous man, shall receive a righteous man’s reward.”—S. Matt. x. 41. Cf Olshausen, 
én loc. 

11 Kings, xiii. 2 Hebr. iv. 15. 

3 Mr. Maurice, in his volume of ‘“ Theological Essays,” has devoted the thirteenth 
essay to the question of Inspiration. The chief topic there discussed is that distinction 
between the significations of the word ‘ Inspiration’ which has been now considered ; 
and on this subject Mr. Maurice’s opinion is adverse to that which I have advocated. I 
venture to think that this difference of opinion has arisen from one of those ambiguities 
of language which have tended to obscure the question of Inspiration to a greater ex- 
tent, perhaps, than any other within the range of Theology. Mr. Maurice approaches this 
topic as follows: ‘ Religious men, the most earnestly religious men, speak of themselves 
as taught, actuated, inhabited by a Divine Spirit. They declare that they could know 
nothing of the Scriptures except they were under this guidance. Is this the Inspiration 
which we attribute to the writers of the Old and New Testament, or is that different 
from it in kind ?”—p. 321. Mr. Maurice then proceeds to observe that “the Church of 
England has used this very word ‘Inspiration,’”—viz., in the Collect for the Fifth 
Sunday after Easter, and in the Communion Service, on which he asks: ‘Are we 
paltering with words in a double sense? When we speak of Inspiration, do we mean 
Inspiration? When we refer to the Inspiration of the Scriptures in our sermons, 
ought we to say, ‘ Brethren, we beseech you not to suppose that this Inspiration at 
all resembles that for which we have been praying. They are generically, essentially 
unlike.’ ”—p. 323. The use here of the word ‘ generically’ indicates, I apprehend, the 
source of Mr. Maurice’s opinion on this subject. He appears to have thought that if 
the word ‘Inspiration’ implies two distinct kinds of influence, the reference of either 


LECT. V.| REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. 227 


The very manner in which Scripture notices this inherent 
frailty of even the organs of Revelation, forcibly illustrates how 
the Divine element engaged in its composition has neutralized 
every tendency which is merely human, Take the case of 8. Pe- 
ter’s denial of his Master. We can find in the Gospel narrative 
no stern denunciation of the act ; no indignant allusion to its 
cowardice or its ingratitude: lightly as the glance of the Lord 
Himself fell upon the Apostle while he disowned Him, the pen 
of the sacred writers but touches on the occurrence, and passes 


1 


on, Such failings are, in general, noticed, as we should say, in 


to the Holy Ghost must exclude His agency in exercising the other. ‘‘ Can we con- 
ceive,” he asks, “any view of the Holy Scriptures which would have seemed to him 
[S. Paul] more dreadful, than one which, under color of exalting them, should set 
aside their own express testimony concerning the unspeakable gift which God had con- 
ferred on His creatures?” * * * “Jn solitary chambers, among bedridden suf- 
ferers, the words of these good men [“our Venns and Newtons”| have still a living 
force. The Bible is read there truly as an inspired book; as a book which does not 
stand aloof from human life, but meets it; which proves itself not to be the work of a 
DIFFERENT Spirit from that which is reproving and comforting the sinner, but of the 
same.’—p. 333. Here the writer seems to have overlooked the bearing upon this 
question of 5. Paul’s express statement: ‘There are diversities of gitts, but THE SAME 
Spirit” (1 Cor. xii. 4). These words assuredly imply a specific difference in the mani- 
festations of spiritual agency ; and hence the following alternative does not convey an 
accurate statement of the opinion on which Mr. Maurice pronounces judgment: 
“ Hither we must set at nought the faith of those who have clung to the Bible, and 
found a meaning in it when the doctors could not interpret it; or we must forego the 
demand which we make on the consciences of young men, when we compel them to 
say that they regard the Inspiration of the Bible as GENERICALLY unlike that which 
God bestows on His children in this day.”—p. 334. 

Mr. Maurice’s motive for dwelling on this question, of itself, accounts for the view 
which he has propounded: “1 have appeared to protest against current theories of 
Inspiration because they fail to assert the actual presence of that Spirit whom it has 
been one of the standing articles of his [the Unitarian’s] creed not to confess, I can- 
not deny this charge. Τ do think that our theories of Inspiration, however little 
they may accord with Unitarian notions, have a semi-Unitarian character; that they 
are derived from that unbelief in the Holy Ghost which is latent in us all, but which 
was developed and embodied in the Unitarianism of the last century.”—p. 346. Mr. 
Maurice, iu fact, conceives that the theories “about Inspiration current among our 
Hivangelical and High Church teachers,” and according to which the agency of the 
Holy Ghost in the composition of Scripture differs from the influences which He sheds 
upon Christians in every age,—have tended to prevent “a full assertion of that por- 
tion of our creed which refers to the Person of the Comforter.” Without considering 
whether this notion is well or ill founded, 1 would merely observe that ‘the theory’ 
advanced in these Discourses is certainly not obnoxious to the charge of casting a 
cloud over the Personal agency of the Holy Spirit. 

? “ And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the 
word of the Lord, how He had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny 
me thrice. And Peter went out, and wept bitterly. And the men that held Jesus 
mocked him,” &¢.—S. Luke, xxii. 61-63. Compare the single remark which the 
Evangelists make use of when referring historical/y to the name of Judas Iscariot— 
“who also betrayed Him,” (S Matt. x. 4.); or, again, the narrative of the murder of 
S. John the Baptist (S. Matt. xiv. 3-12) which closes with the simple statement: 
ἐς His disciples came, and took up the body and buried it, and went and told Jesus.” 
So, too, in the Old Testament, the sin of Lot (Gen. xix. 30-38) is recorded without 


228 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. [LECT. V. 


the most cursory manner. The sinful act is dwelt upon, and the 
violation of the command of God by His ambassador is held up 
as an object of reprobation, in such cases only where there might 
be danger of misapprehension, or where the moral sense of itself 
might not at once reconcile the difficulty. Thus, in the thirteenth 
chapter of the first Book of Kings, we read how the “ old prophet 
who dwelt in Bethel” seduced “the man of God” by whom, in 
the strength of the Spirit, the King of Israel had been braved 
beside the altar. At first, indeed, ‘‘ the man of God” refused to 
disobey the express command of the Lord ; but he is answered 
by the assertion, “1 am a prophet also as thou art, and an angel 
spake unto me by the word of the Lord.” Here there is plainly 
room for the utmost offence and misapprehension, which, the in- 
spired historian, without any comment, at once dispels by the 
single phrase, ‘‘ But he led unto him.”* 

There are many other characteristics of the sacred volume 
which cannot fail, in like manner, to impress the mind with the 
deepest conviction of the unceasing presence and controlling in- 
fluence of its Divine Author. Consider, for example, the super- 
human wisdom with which the language of Scripture touches 
upon the institutions of the old Gentiie world in their relation 
to Christianity. Need I mention here the often quoted instance 
of how the New Testament writers abstain from all direct repro- 
bation of the great social crime of slavery ? They confine them- 
selves to pointing out the source, and inculcating the great prin- 


any comment. The incest of Reuben (Gen. xxxv. 22) is noticed with the single re- 
mark: “ And Israel heard it.” In 2 Kings, xvi. 10-16, an act of peculiar impiety is 
recorded as having been committed by King Ahaz and the High Priest Urijah: we 
are, no doubt, informed in the beginning of the chapter of the character of Ahaz; but 
were we unacquainted with the ordinances of the Mosaic Law, we assuredly could 
not have formed any adequate notion of the nature of his crime, from what the nar- 
rative itself unfolds. 

1 Ver. 18. The importance of these facts will be at once seen, if we remember 
that the manner in which Scripture touches upon the morality of many actions related 
in its pages has been urged as an objection against a strict view of its inspiration. 
Thus, alluding to “the progressive character of the Scripture morality,” and having 
asserted that an “imperfect morality is plainly discernible throughout the period of 
the Old Testament dispensation, and frequently embodied, too, in the Old Testament 
Scriptures,” Mr. Morell observes: “These things, it is said, may be explained as 
being permitted by God for a time on account of the weakness of human nature, or, 
as our Saviour expressed it on one occasion, ‘on account of the hardness of their 
hearts.’ But surely it is one thing to suppose that God would tolerate these things, 
just as he tolerates sin in His creatures, while the struggle against evil is going on, 
and quite another thing to have them either justified (?) or spoken of as matters of 
moral tndifference, in words dictated immediately by the Hoty Spirit.”"—Philos. of 
Religion, p. 168. 


LECT. V.] REVELATION AND INSPIRATION, 229 


ciple of Christian brotherhood :’ the result they leave to the 
fructifying influence of the Holy Spirit, and to time. Again, 
observe the marked distinction which exists between the Bible 
and all other writings which relate to the history of man indi- 
vidually or collectively. To take a single illustration :—we may 
remark throughout the Scripture narrative the absence of per- 
sonal feeling, and the suppression of personal emotion.’ Josephus, 
observes Pascal, conceals the dishonor of his nation : Moses does 
not conceal his own.’ What reader has failed to notice how the 
cold sententiousness of Tacitus expands into tenderness, and 
warms with passion, when he turns aside to weep over the last 
moments of Agricola ?* But compare with this natural out- 
pouring of feeling the record of the Evangelists. There no ex- 
pression of human sympathy accompanies the story of the Agony 
in the Garden,—the awful scene before Pulate,—the horrors of 
the Cross! No burst of emotion attends their Master’s body 
to the grave, or welcomes His Resurrection :—and yet who has 
not felt how this treatment of their theme but adds to its pathos 
and its grandeur ?° 





1 “ By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gen 
tiles, whether we be bond or free.”—1 Cor. xii. 13. Cf. ch. vii. 20, 21; 1 Tim. vi. 1, 2; 
158. Pet. ii. 18, &c., &e. 

2 Speaking of the predictions contained in Lev. xxvi. and Deut. xxviii, Mr. Da- 
vison observes: “It is a striking fact in the delivery of this prophecy, that it comes 
from the mouth of Moses, the legislator of the commonwealth whose dissolution he 
is directed to foreshow. * * * How unlike is it to the ordinary course of man’s 
Own spirit or wisdom to dwell upon the downfall of his own works, just at the mo- 
ment when they come fresh from his hands. * * * ‘The approaching settlement 
of this chosen people, their first advance to Canaan, is the season when their ruin, 
and their expulsion from that land, are introduced to view. The prophetic tidings 
of their distant overthrow are made to sound in our ears as loud as the song of their 
present victory. A combination of things rarely made, and not conformable to the 
human feeling left to itself; but which is not without example in other conspicuous 
parts of Prophecy. For as Moses foretells the desolation of his people at the moment 
wheu he reared them into a community, so to Solomon were foreshown the ruins of 
his Temple at the like season, when he beheld it completed in its magnificence, and 
bearing upon it the omens of hope and joy in the blessing of its first Inauguration.” 
On Prophecy, p. 164. 

3. “Joséphe cache la honte de sa nation; Moise ne cache pas sa honte propre.”—= 
ed. Faugere, t. ii. p. 193. 

4 Cf “Julii Agricole Vita,” cap. xliii-xlvi Εἰ. g. “Τὰ vero felix, Agricola, non 
vitze tantum claritate, sed etiam opportunitate mortis: ut perhibent, qui interfuerunt 
novissimis sermonibus tuis, coustans et libens fatum excepisti, tamquam pro virili 
portione innocentiam Principi donares. Sed mihi filizque, preter acerbitatem pa- 
rentis erepti, auget mcestitiam, quod adsidere valetudini, fovere deficientem, satiari 
vultu, complexu, non contigit. Kxcepissemus certe mandata vocesque, quas penitus 
animo figeremus. Noster hie dolor, nostrum vulnus:” &¢.—cap. xly. 

5 “On the subject of miracles, the means to this great end, they speak in calm, 
animpassioned language; on man’s sins, change of heart, on hope, faith, and charity ; 


230 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. [LECT. V 


And thus it is that human instrumentality, according to the 
various aspects under which we have considered it, has been 
moulded by the Holy Spirit into the organism of Revelation. 
Each ray of the Divine Light has been borne to mankind through 
the medium best suited for its transmission : and yet, while bor- 
rowing, on its course, that particular hue which the medium lends 
through which it passes, it retains, no less sensibly, the purity 
of the source from which it streams. In past ages God had 
spoken unto the fathers by means of sundry partitions of the 
Truth, and in divers manners.’ The constituent elements of 
Revelation were thus conveyed gradually, and under aspects best 
suited to the time : and this partial communication of His de- 
crees was, no doubt, one consequence of the Fall ;—rendered 
necessary by man’s incapacity to receive, and so ordained by 
God’s wise counsel to withhold. But in these “last days” He 
has spoken to us by His Son.’ In the language of Christ we can 
discern no features tinged by human genius, no hues borrowed 
from human thought. In His words the severed rays of Reve- 
lation have been re-combined in one uncolored beam of Truth. 


on the objects in short to be effected, they exhaust all their feelings and eloquence. 
Their history, from the narrative of our Lord’s persecutions to those of Paul, the 
abomination of the Jews, embraces scenes and personages which claim from the or- 
dinary reader a continual effusion of sorrow, or wonder, or indignation. In writers 
who were friends of the parties, and adherents of the cause for which they did and 
suffered so great things, the absence of it is, on ordinary grounds, incomprehensible. 
* % %* Had these authors no feeling? Had their mode of life bereaved them 
of the common sympathies and sensibilities of human nature? Read such passages 
as Paul’s parting address to the elders of Miletus; the same Apostle’s recommenda- 
tion of the offending member of the Corinthian Church to pardon; and, more than 
all, the occasional bursts of conflicting feeling, in which anxious apprehension for 
the faith and good behavior of his converts is mixed with the pleasing recollection 
of their conversion, and the minister and the man are alike strongly displayed—and 
it will be plain that Christianity exercised no benumbing influence on the heart. 
* * %* Still, is it possible that the natural man should have sustained, without 
one relapse, one single deviation, a tone of feeling so much beyond man? Could 
the cireumstances of these writers, overpoweringly impressive though they were, 
have secured them against even an occasional betrayal of wonder, of pity, of indig- 
nation, or of sorrow? The more we reflect on the nature of the scenes they de- 
scribe, the more forcibly will the question be suggested. Must not such emotions 
have arisen, on some occasions at least, in the breast even of men so circumstanced— 
men who were still of like passions with ourselves? That the expression of such 
feelings should nowhere appear, throughout the narratives of each and of all, does 
certainly seem inexplicable ; unless we admit a miraculous control of their author- 
ship,—unless we suppose them, in short, to have been, not merely workers and wit- 
nesses of miracles, but miraculously guided in their writings.”—Bishop Hinds, On 
Inspiration, p. 83, &e. 
1 Πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως πάλαι ὁ Θεὸς AaAnoac.—Heb. i. 1. 
3 ᾿Ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν Yio.—Tbid. 


LECT. V.| REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. 231 


The clouds have now parted which once veiled from the eye of 
fallen man the gracious purpose of his heavenly Father. ‘ God 
who commanded the light to shine out of darkness hath shined 
in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of 
God, in the face of Jesus Christ.”" The Sun of Righteousness 
has arisen with healing in His wings:—the Eternal Word has 
become incarnate, to regenerate, and to redeem. 


1 3 Oor. iv. ἃ. 


oe). 


aoe ni ut 
tN ei Ha SITE, ἢ 





LECTURE VI. 


SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 


Θαυμαστὴν δὲ λίαν ἐχόντων τῶν ἁγίων Ἐῤαγγελιστῶν τὴν ἐν τῷ γράφειν ἀκρίβειαν" 
οὐ γὰρ αὐτοὶ λαλοῦσι, κατὰ τὴν τοῦ Σωτῆρος φωνὴν, ἀλλὰ τὸ Πνεῦμα τοῦ Πατρὸς τὸ ἐν 


αὐτοῖς. 
5. Cyrzu Alex. Comm. tn S. Joan. Evang., lib. i Procem. 


“‘Cedamus igitur et consentiamus auctoritati Sanctee Scripture, que nescit falli nec 
Pp q 


fallere,”’ 
S. Auaust. De peccator. merit., lib. i. c. 22. 


Τῷ διορισμῷ χρησάμενος ἀπέκρινε τὰ τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης σοφίας συγγράμματα. θεόπ- 
νευστον δὲ γραφὴν τὴν πνευματικὴν ὠνόμασεν. ἡ γὰρ τοῦ Θεΐου Πνεύματος χάρις διὰ 
τῶν Προφητῶν καὶ τῶν ᾿Αποστόλων ἐφθέγξατο. Θεὸς τοίνυν τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Δγιον, εἶπερ 
ἀληθῶς κατὰ τὸν Ἀπόστολον θεόπνευστος τοῦ Πνεύματος ἣ γραφῆ. 

THEODORETUS, Jn Epist. ii. ad Tim. 


LECTURE VI. 


SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 


WHICH THINGS ALSO WE SPEAK, NOT IN THE WORDS WHICH MAN’S WISDOM TEACH: 
ETH, BUT WHICH THE HOLY GHOST TEACHETH.—1 Cor, ii. 13. 


THE topics which have hitherto chiefly engaged our atten- 
tion have been the reality of a Divine Revelation, and the nature 
of the Holy Spirit’s agency by means of which that Revelation 
has been imparted to mankind. The co-operation of the Holy 
Spirit for such a purpose has been termed ‘ Inspiration ;’ and 
the evidence already adduced, in order to exhibit the character 
of this peculiar influence, has consisted principally of inferences 
trom certain phenomena presented by the Bible, as well as from 
the structure of its various parts. An important subject, there- 
fore, still remains untouched, the consideration of which, as stated 
on ἃ previous occasion, has been necessarily postponed :—I mean 
the direct evidence which the sacred writers themselves supply. 
The connexion of this branch of our inquiry with what has pre- 
ceded is too obvious to require comment : a few preliminary re- 
marks, however, may serve to strengthen the combined force of 
the two lines of proof, and to illustrate the general tendency of 
the course of reasoning here pursued. 

I would observe, therefore, that if the fact of a Revelation 
having been given be not questioned ; and if the Bible be, con- 
fessedly, the repository of such a communication from God,’— 


1 See Lecture 1v. p. 140. 

? Even those systems which profess to be founded on a newrevelation unite with 
the Christian in admitting the Divine authority of the Bible. Thus Mohammed was 
content to appeal to the facts of Scripture as precedents: “ Verily we have revealed 
our will unto thee, as we have revealed it unto Noah, and the proplets who suc- 
ceeded him, and as we revealed it unto Abraham and Ismael, and Isaac and Jacob, 
and the tribes, and unto Jesus, and Job, and Jonas, and Aaron, and Solomon; and 
we have given thee the Koran as we gave the Psalms unto David,” &c. &c.—Sale’s 
Koran, ch. iv. ἄορ. &. See Dr. Henderson’s work entitled ‘‘ Divine Inspiration,” p. 11 


236 SCRIPTURAL PROOF [LECT. Vl 


there is the highest possible presumption, ἃ prior?, that a certain 
degree of Divine assistance has been superadded, for the purpose 
of enabling the authors of this record to compose their narratives 
with perfect accuracy, and to transmit the Revelation to others 
in its original purity. If this Revelation was intended for men 
in every age,—and so much, at least, the nature of the case en- 
titles us to assume,—on what grounds can any doubt be cast on 
the credibility of God’s having specially commissioned certain 
agents to hand down the history of it to future times, or of His 
having bestowed upon them such aid as would ensure that the 
knowledge which He had disclosed should be preserved free from 
all alloy of human imperfection ? Such precautions, in fact, are 
no more than what any man, who has made a great discovery in 
some department of science, is sure to take, if he only desire that 
the knowledge of his discovery should not be lost. Nay, when 
we bear in mind that so many astonishing miracles have been 
performed in order to convey this Revelation to man, and to 
bring to pass the system of things which it announces, we feel 
instinctively inclined to presuppose that God cannot have with- 
held the far less striking miracle of providing against error in 
the documents which preserve 10... When we remember, too, 
how vast a space of human history is included in the narratives 
of which the sacred volume is composed, this presumption be- 
comes still stronger. Without such superhuman guidance, it is 





We are told, moreover, that the Mohammedan Doctors teach that both the Gospel 
and the Koran were predicted in the Old Testament. In the “Specimen Hist. 
Arabum,” by Abul-Faragius, we read: “Porro asserunt Islamitarum docti, factam 
fuisse mentionem Mohammedis in libris a Deo demissis, sc. in Lege, isto textu; 
‘Venit Deus a Sina, et ortus est a Sair, et manifestatus est a monte Paranis’ (Deut. 
xxxiii. 2): quibus verbis indicari dicunt descensum Legis ad Mosem, Evangelii ad 
Jesum, et Alcorani ad Mohammedem.”—(Pococke’s transl., pp. 14 and 183.) [Ὁ is, 
in like manner, one of the articles of the Mormon ‘“ Creed:”—‘“ We believe in the 
word of God recorded in the Bible.” 

1 To this effect Bishop Warburton observes: ‘‘They [the Apostles] worked mir- 
acles, they spake with tongues, they explained mysteries, they interpreted prophee 
cies, they discerned the true from the false pretences to the Spirit: and all this for 
the temporary and occasional discharge of their ministry. Is it possible, then, to 
suppose them to be deserted by their Divine Inlightener whea they sat down to the 
other part of their work; to frame a rule for the lasting service of the Church? 
Can we believe that that Spirit, which so bountifully assisted them in their assem- 
blies, had withdrawn Himself when they retired to their private oratories; or that, 
when their speech was with all power, their writings should convey no more than the 
created fallible dictates of human knowledge? To suppose the endowments of the 
Spirit to be so capriciously bestowed, would make it look more like a mockery than 
a gift. And to believe all this would be a harder task than what (the Deist tells us) 
religious credulity imposes on us.”—On the Office of the Holy Spirit: Works, vol. iv. 
p. 061. 


LECT. VI.| SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 237 


inexplicable, considering the contents of the Bible, that just sc 
much should have been placed on record, and no more.’ Were 
we to admit that any portion of Scripture has resulted from the 
unaided exercise of human judgment or of human faculties, it 
would always be possible to argue that the historian has omitted 
much information which it concerns us to know, or that he has 
preserved many facts which are trivial or unnecessary ; that he 
has but partially or imperfectly handed down the communica- 
tion from heaven ; that such or such a fact has not been reported 
with accuracy ; or, in fine, that some particular expression or 
doctrine has not been conveyed to us as God intended :—espe- 
cially in cases where the subject matter of the narrative appears 
strange, or opposed to human preconceptions. If we had never 
heard of the difficulties which have been urged against Inspira- 
tion—if we had never opened the Scriptures themselves—could 
the suspicion have ever occurred to any fair mind, that God may 
have thus left to all the chances of human fallibility the history 
of that Revelation which (it is assumed) He has given to His 
creatures, instructing them in their duties, and unfolding to them 
His decrees ?’—above all, when we know, as a matter of fact, 
that in every age an unhesitating conviction has been expressed 
by the Jewish, and subsequently by the Christian Church, that 
the different portions of the Bible have been composed under the 
immediate direction and impulse of the Holy Ghost. Now if all 
this must appear highly credible to any unprejudiced inquirer, 
who had never opened the pages of Scripture, it remains for us 
to see whether, having opened its several Books, and studied 
their contents, such credibility either diminishes or disappears. 
The value of the inspired writers’ own statements is naturally 
of the highest order.* Those statements fully confirm the here- 





! Take, for example, the Gospel narrative. S. John’s account embraces but few 
of the particulars recorded by the Synoptists ; while they, in turn, omit all mention 
of such facts as the raising of Lazarus, the prophecy of Caiaphas, &e. Indeed we 
are expressly told that no record has been preserved of “ many other things which 
Jesus did.”—S. John, xxi. 25. 

? Of. Téliner, “Die gottl EHingebung der heil. Schrift.” s. 148 ff_—‘ Fir Leute, 
welche nicht nur die Kingebung sondern auch die Wahrheit und Glaubwiirdigkeit der 
heiligen Schrift bestreiten, schreibe ich nicht.”—s. 149. 

3 In considering the evidence supplied by the statements of Scripture itself, I 
would observe that the full bearing of the different texts can only be appreciated 
when we regard them as combined in one argument—an argument, moreover, which 
must not be separated from the other proofs adduced. The opponent cannot be per- 
mitted to pass judgment upon the several statements of the sacred writers in detail, 


238 SCRIPTURAL PROOF. [LECT. Vl 


ditary doctrines of the Church upon the subject of Inspiration, 
as well as complete that testimony where it is, of necessity, de- 
fective ;—for the authors of Scripture alone could bear direct 
evidence to the fact, that they had received revelations from God, 
or that they had been inspired to compose the sacred narrative. 
Every other species of evidence must either be traced back to 
that of the writers themselves, or have been founded partly on 
the tokens of miraculous power which they displayed, partly on 
the information supplied by other agents of God, who were sim- 
ilarly endowed. We naturally expect, as I have said, to find in- 
formation on this matter in the pages of Scripture. When we 
read this account, so minute and circumstantial, of the various 
disclosures which God has made to man, we cannot believe’ that 
no information has been imparted as to the amount of care taken 
to ensure the purity of the documents in which they are pre- 
served. Were the Bible altogether silent upon this subject, we 
can easily picture to ourselves the use which would be made of 
such a fact ; but when the very reverse is the case, as I now pro- 
ceed to show, the force of the argument which thence results, in 
proof of the perfect inspiration of all the parts of Scripture, 


and to argue that such or such a passage of Scripture does not, taken separately, sup- 
port the whole. weight ur the conclusion which it is sought to establish on the basis 
of all combined. Nor, indeed, can justice be done to the reasoning by which the in- 
spiration of the Bible is proved, were either the force of the direct evidence to be 
estimated merely by the force which will still be retained, after all evasion, by its 
constituent parts taken singly; or were such evidence to be considered apart from 
the many collateral proofs which have been adduced in confirmation. To borrow the 
admirable illustration of Bishop Butler when speaking of the “evidence of Chris- 
tianity,’—The evidence for Inspiration combines many things “of great variety and 
compass * * * making up, all of them together, one argument; the conviction 
arising from which kind of proof may be compared to what they call the effect in 
architecture or other works of art; a result from a great number of things so and so 
disposed, and taken into one view.”—Analogy, Part τι. ch, vii. 

1 In saying this, I take for granted, as a matter of fact, that we possess in the 
Bible a written narrative of God’s Revelation to man;—a narrative, too, which can 
be shown to have been composed in accordance with a Divine command (see supra, 
Lecture ii. p. 53, &e.; and infra, Lecture vii). I do not, therefore, in any way 
contravene the following important principles laid down by Bishop Butler: “We 
are in no sort judges by what methods, and in what proportion, a were to be 
expected that this supernatural light and instruction would be afforded us. * * * 
Nay, we are not in any sort able to judge whether 7 were to have been expected, 
that the revelation should have been committed to writing; or left to be handed 
down, and consequently corrupted by verbal tradition. * * * It may be said, 
‘that a revelation * * * which was not committed to writing * * * would 
not have answered its purpose.’ I ask, what purpose? It would not have an- 
swered all the purposes, which it has now answered, and in the same degree; 
but it would have answered others, or the same in different degrees.”—Analogy, 
Part τι. ch. iil. 


LECT. VI.] SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 239 


will best be estimated by reflecting upon the desperate efforts 
which have been made to evade it.’ 

And, first of all, as to the titles which have been appropriated 
to the sacred writings. This collection of documents is styled, 
either absolutely and simply ‘ Scripture,” in the singular ; or 
“the Scriptures,” in the plural :*-—the term “ Scripture,” more- 
over, being on more than one occasion® used as if it were synony- 
mous with its Author, where, from the references to the Old Tes- 


1T cannot avoid alluding to the manner in which Perrone copies, as one may say, 
the words of the most extreme Rationalists, in his desire to prove that the authority 
of the Church is the sole ground for our belief in the inspiration of Scripture. He 
argues thus: ‘‘Seclusa Ecclesiz auctoritate nulla alia nobis superest via ad divinam 
sacrorum librorum inspirationem internoscendam nisi aut Scriptura ipsa, aut antiqua 
documenta, aut intrinsica quedam librorum illorum proprietas. * * * Porro nihil 
horum ad rem conficiendam valet.” In reply to the second and third members of this 
alternative, see Lecture ii., and Lecture i. p. 46, &c. As to the first, Perrone writes: 
“Non Scriptura wpsa; nuspiam enim Scriptura declarat quinam singillatim libri 
Spiritu S. afflante conscripti sint, quinam vero nequaquam, Et quamvis nonnulla 
hue illue afferantur dicta tanquam oracula a Spiritu S. dictata, hee precise non 
afficiunt integrum librum ex quo peculiaria illa testimonia promuntur, ita ut presse 
inferri possit ac debeat, librum integrum cum omnibus suis partibus fuisse Spiritu 8. 
afflante conscriptum. Si interdum legitur ‘omnem Scripturam esse divinitus in- 
spiratam’ ejusmodi effata nonnisi de libris Vet. Test. accipi possunt, idque sane gen- 
eratim, sic ut semper incertum maneat quinam libri singillatim Spiritu S. afflante, 
fuerint exarati, seu quinam illam ‘omnem Scripturam’ Spiritu 8. inspiratam revera 
constituant.”—Prelect, Theol., vol. ii. par. ii. cap. 2. p. 89. The resemblance of this pas- 
sage to tlie following statement of Bretschneider is very remarkable: “ Dasselbe gilt 
von den Stellen, wo sich die Apostel den Geist zuschreiben, und in seiner Kraft zu 
lebren versichern, wie 1 Kor. ii. 4 ff Denn daraus folgt, dass sie den Geist hatten, 
dass also der Inhalt ihrer Lehre, Lehre des Geistes sei, keineswegs aber, dass ihnen 
der Geist ihre Schreiben dictire. Noch weniger mag 2 Tim. iii. 16, beweisen, da dort 
Paulus vom alten Test. spricht, und nicht von seinen eignen oder andern neutesta- 
mentlichen Schriften.” —Handb. der Dogmat., B. i. 8.393. Indeed the Roman Catholic 
theologian goes further than the Rationalist; especially when he replies as follows to 
the argument in support of the inspiration of the Old Testament, derived from the 
manner in which Christ and His Apostles refer to it: ‘‘ Formule quas Christus et 
Apostoli adhibuere vage ac generales sunt. * * * Multo vero minus ex generalibus 
illis formulis constare nobis poterit singulas uniuscujusque libri partes fuisse inspi- 
ratas.”—Perrone, loc. cit. p. 97. 

3. Ἢ γραφή. S. John, ii. 22; Acts, viii. 32; Rom. iv. 3, &., &c.; ai ypapai, ὃ, Matt. 
xxii. 29; S. Mark, xiv. 49; S. Luke, xxiv. 27; S. John, v. 39, and passim. 

5 “The Scripture (ἡ γραφή), foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through 
faith, preached before the Gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be 
blessed.” —Gal. iii. 8; while in Gen. xii. 1-3, we read: ‘‘ Now the Lord had said unto 
Abram, Get thee out of thy country * * * unto a land that I will show thee 
* * * and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.” Again, S. Paul 
writes: “The Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised 
thee up,” &¢—Rom. ix. 17; words which Mr. Alford paraphrases as follows: “ The 
Scripture (identified with God, its Author: the case, as Tholuck remarks, is different 
when merely something contained in Scripture is introduced by 7 γραφὴ λέγει : there 
ἡ yp. is merely personified. The justice of Tholuck’s remark will be apparent, if we 
reflect that this expression could not be used of the mere ordinary words of any man 
in the historical Scriptures, Ahab or Hezekiah,—but only where the text itself speaks, 
or where God spoke, or, as here, some man under inspiration of God) saith to Pharaoh.” 
Cf. also the general mode of quoting the Old Testament in the Epistle to the 
Hebrews. 


240 SCRIPTURAL PROOF, [LECT. VI. 


tament, the Author can be no other than God Himself. As might 
be expected, the term is generally applied to the Old Testament ; 
the New Testament Canon not having been as yet completed. 
In one instance, however, 8. Paul’s Epistles are implicitly referred 
to by 8. Peter under this name,’ and are, consequently, declared 
by him to be inspired ; since in all the fifty places where the term 
“‘ Scripture” occurs elsewhere in the New Testament, it is em- 
ployed solely with reference to that collection of writings which 
the Jews regarded as the “‘ oracles of God ;”"—-or, to speak more 
accurately, perhaps, it is applied only to the Old Testament, and 
to those portions of the New which had been composed at the 
time ; for no argument which has hitherto been advanced ex- 
plains away the fact that our Lord’s words in the Gospel, ‘‘ the 
laborer is worthy of his hire,” are quoted verbatim as “ Scripture” 
by 8. Paul, in the same sense as the passage from the Pentateuch 
which is coupled with them.* We also find distinctive epithets 
added :—“‘ The Prophetic Scriptures ;’* or “‘ Prophecy of Scrip- 


? “Even as our beloved brother Paul also * * * hath written (ἔγραψεν) unto 
you; as also in all his Epistles * * * in which are some things hard to be un- 
derstood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other 
Scriptures (ὡς καὶ τὰ ς λοιπὰς ypaddc).”—2 5. Pet. iii. 15, 16. ‘‘ Peter reckons Paul’s 
Epistles, while the author was still alive, among the γραφάς, Holy Scriptures.”—Hug, 
EFinleitung. Th. i. § 17. 4te Aufl. 5. 101. 

2 See Wordsworth, “‘On the Canon,” p. 185. Hence, in the language of the 
New Testament, the term γραφῇ must be understood, in the strictest sense, as ὦ proper 
name. 

3 §. Paul, referring to the provision which the Church is bound to set apart for its 
ministers,—a duty to which he has elsewhere (1 Cor. ix. 14) adverted as being what 
“the Lord hath ordained”—writes: ‘For the Scripture saith (λέγει γὰρ ἡ γραφή), 
‘Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn’ [Deut. xxv. 4]. And, 
‘The laborer is worthy of his reward’ (“Agvoc ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ abrod).”—1 Tim. 
v. 18. The words of the second quotation are nowhere to be found in the Old Testa- 
ment: but our Lord, prescribing to the Church the same duty to which the Apostle has 
here adverted, on one occasion observes (to the “ Twelve”), ἄξιος γὰρ 6 épy. τῆς τροφῆς 
aitov—S. Matt. x.10; and on another (to the “ Seventy”), ἄξιος γὰρ ὁ épy. τοῦ μισθοῦ 
aitov—S. Luke, x. 7. It surely will not do to say, with Wiesinger, im loc.: “If he 
[S. Paul] desired to support this dictum by an authority, he would have appealed, as in 
Acts, xx. 35 |where, be it observed, S. Paut adduces an unwritten saying of Christ], 
or 1 Cor. ix. 14, to the Κύριος, and not to the Gospel of his helper Luke [whose words, 
however, S. Paul literally copies], including this along with the Old Testament under 
ἡ γραφή. * * * The words, ‘the Scripture saith,’ are therefore not to be con- 
nected with this citation, and Calvin is right when he says, ‘citat * * * quasi 
dictum proverbiale, quod omnibus dictat communis sensus. Quemadmodum et 
Christus quum idem dicebat nihil aliud quam sententiam proferebat omnium consensu 
approbatam.’ ”"—s. 524. 

It may be observed, that the Apostle here combines the Old and the New Testa» 
ment under the title γραφή, when addressing the same person to whom he subse 
quently writes, πᾶσα γραφὴ Georvevotoc—2 Tim. iii. 16. 

4 “Made known by the Scriptures of the Prophets (διά re γραφῶν προφητικῶν)," - 
Rom. xvi. 26. 


LECT. VI. | SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 241 


ture ;”” or the significant phrase ‘‘ Scripture given by Inspiration 
of God.’” In fine, there are the two emphatic expressions “ the 
Holy Scriptures,” and “the Hallowed Writings,’”*—the latter 
being the technical phrase by which the Jews were wont to des- 
ignate the Books of the Old Testament.* There exists, however, 
an important distinction between the ideas which these two ex- 
pressions convey, although our English Version represents them 
as being equivalent. The epithet “Holy” Scripture intimates 
the special relation of the Bible to God the Holy Ghost ;° and in 
this sense it is that the Apostle defines ‘all Scripture” as 


1 Προφητείΐα γραφῆς.---2 S. Pet. i. 20. 

3 Τραφὴ θεόπνευστος .----2 Tim. iii. 16,—an expression which may be illustrated by 
the New Testament phrase, ἐν Πνεύματι [Θεοῦ], as denoting the state in which the 
Divine influence was felt: see swpra, Lecture iii. p. 129, note. Thus, having quoted 
our Lord’s words: “‘ How then doth David im Spirit call Him Lord,” ἄς. (5. Matt. 
xxii. 43),—S. Gregory of Nyssa observes: οὐκοῦν τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ Πνεύματος οἱ θεοφο- 
ρούμενοι τῶν ἁγίων ἐμπνέονται. καὶ διὰ τοῦτο πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος λέγεται, διὰ τὸ 
τῆς θείας ἐμπνεύσεως εἷναι διδασκαλίαν .---- Cont. Eunom., Orat. V1. t. li. p. 605. We 
may also compare the words of the text prefixed to the present Lecture (1 Cor. ii. 13) 
with the statement of David himself: ‘The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and His 
word was in my tongue,”—2 Sam. xxiii. 2. Cf too, ὑπὸ Πνεύματος ‘Ayior 
φερόμενοι ἐλάλησαν ἀπὸ Θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι.----2 8. Pet.i. 21. To which illustra- 
tions of the foree of θεόπνευστος may be added the analogy of a similar term likewise 
employed by 3. Paul alone: ‘‘ Ye yourselves are taught of God (θεοδίδακτοι) to love 
one another.”—1 Thess. iv. 9. (Cf διδακτοὶ Ocot—S. John, vi. 45.) As further illus- 
trating the signification which such a compound term as θεόπνευστος must have con- 
veyed to the mind of a Jew, we may compare the following form of expression: ‘The 
holy Law made and given by God (τῆς ἁγίας καὶ θεοκτίστου νομοθεσίας)" --- 
2 Mace. vi. 23; and also that of Philo—feoypyara Aoyca—already quoted, Lec- 
ture ii. p. 67, note 1. According to some, who follow the analogy of the word 
ἄπνευστος which has an active sense (“without breath, breathless, Od. v. 456: hence 
lifeless” —L., and §.), θεόπνευστος --- spirans Deum, or, as we may say, “plenus Deo,” 
without much affecting the signification. Baumgarten Crusius considers analogy to 
be decisive in favor of this active sense: ‘Die active giebt noch den angemessenen 
Zusammenhang: was den gottlichen Geist in sich hat, wiirkt auch durch diesen 
auf das Leben ein.”—Grundziige der bibl. Theol., s. 235; and he considers that the 
Apostle in order to express this idea employs θεόπνευστον. uot πρυφητικόν (Rom. 
Xvi. 26). 

3 Τραφωὶ &dytat—Rom.i.2; and τὰ ἱερὰ γράμματα--- Tim. iii. 15. The 
English Version translates in both places, “the Holy Scriptures.” 

4 See Havernick, “ Hinleitung,” Th. 1. Abth. i. s. 79; who compares “ the distine- 
tion between ἱερός and dyioc; sacer and sanctus ;” (e. g. “*Ayvoc, Sanctus, ut dylwe 
TuTn νησάων, Callim, H. in Del. (275) Plut. in Probl. Τῇ δὲ τιμῇ ποιοῦσιν αὐτὸν ἱερὼὺν, 
καὶ ἅγιον, καὶ ἄσυλον, ubi ἱερὸν καὶ ἅγιον, pro Sacrum et Sanctum ponit, quod vocabulo 
composito Latini Sacrosanctum appellant.’—H. Stephanus, Thesaur. Gr. Ling., ed. 
Valpy, vol. iii. p. 1331.) Havernick also calls attention to the following illustrations 
of the sense in which ‘Iepd γράμματα must have been understood (cf. swpra, Lecture 
ii. p. 70, note '): Josephus, having quoted Daniel’s exposition of Nebuchadnezzar’s 
dream, adds, that if any of his readers desires to know more on the subject : ozovda- 
σάτω τὸ βιβλίον ἀναγνῶναι Tod Δανιήλου: εὑρήσει δὲ τοῦτο ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς γράμ- 
uactv.—Antiq., lib. x. x. 4 t. i. p. 535. Speaking of the Therapeutze Philo writes 
'Ἐντυγχώνοντες γὰρ τοῖς ἱεροῖς γράμμασι, φιλοσοφοῦσι τὴν πάτριαν φιλοσοφίαν 
ἀλληγοροῦντες.----1)6 Vita Contempl., t. ii. p. 475. 

δ See supra, Lecture i. p. 24, ἄο, 


16 


242 SCRIPTURAL PROOF. [LECT. V1. 


“given by Inspiration of God.” ‘The designation ‘‘ Hailowed 
Writings” refers to the human recognition of these sacred com- 
positions ; which are, accordingly, elsewhere described by the 
same Apostle as containing ‘‘the ancient covenant” between 
God and man.’ Weare also to note how 8. Paul, when about to 
be withdrawn from the scene of his labors,’ unites these two senses 
in his final instructions to his disciple and successor ; and how 
he combines an assertion of the practical value of “ the Hallowed 
Writings,” with the statement of the source whence their vitality 
is derived.  “‘ The Hallowed Writings,” he argues, ‘‘ have power 
to make thee wise unto salvation, because Scripture, in all its 
parts, is given by Inspiration of God.” 

Ido not pause to consider the objections which have been 
urged against the rendering of this passage. Without entering 


1 “Until this day, remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the Old 
Testament (τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης)" ---- Cor. iii. 14. See Havernick, loc. cit. ; who points 
out the reference to certain written documents which is contained in the expression 
τῇ ἀναγνώσει; to which is added in explanation, ἡνίκα dv ἀναγινώσκηται Moicic.— 
ver. 15. Cf. ‘And he [Moses] took the Book of the Covenant’”—Hxod. xxiv. 7; 
“And the Lord said unto Moses, Write thow these words : for after the tenor of these 
words I have made a covenant with thee, and with Israel” —xxxiv. 27; together with 
the phrase βιβλίον τῆς διαθήκης, 2 Kings, xxiii. 2 (LXX.): see also Ecclus. xxiv. 23; 
1 Mace. i. 57. 

2 The idea that this passage forms the parting admonition and rule of action be- 
queathed by 8. Paul to Timothy has been beautifully expressed by S. Chrysostom, 
who explains the connexion of the words as follows :—The Apostle naturally consoles 
his disciple, since he was about to impart a great sorrow. If Elisha, who to the last 
had accompanied his master, rent his garments wher he beheld him departing, and 
the glory of his departure,—what must one so beloved, so loving, have suffered, upon 
hearing that the life of his instructor was drawing to a close,—a life, too, the last mo- 
ments of which it was not to be his lot to soothe? Therefore, before he announces 
his approaching death (2 Tim. iv. 6, 7), S. Paul proceeds to administer consolation: 
‘Cand this in no ordinary way, but in words adapted to comfort him, and fill him with 
joy. * * * ‘For Iam now ready to be offered up,’ he says. For this reason he 
writes: ‘All Scripture is given by Inspiration of God, and is profitable,’ &c. All what 
Scripture? All that sacred writing, he means, of which I was speaking. This is said 
of what he was discoursing of; about which he said, ‘ From a child thou hast known 
the Holy Scriptures.’ All such, then, ‘is given by Inspiration of God;’ therefore, he 
means, do not doubt. * * * Thou hast the Scriptures, he says, in place of me. 
If thou wouldest learn anything, thou mayest learn it from them. (Av7’ ἐμοῦ, 
φησὶ, τὰς γραφὰς ἔχεις" εἴ τι βούλει μαθεῖν, ἐκεῖθεν δυνήσῃ) * * * 
And if he thus wrote to Timothy, who was filled with the Spirit, how much more 
unto us!”—Homil. ix. n 2 Tim., t. xi. p. 715. (Oxf transl, p. 249.) 

3 Τὰ ἱερὰ γράμματα oldac τὰ δυνάμενά σε συφίσαι εἰς σωτηρίαν διὰ πίστεως τῆς ἐν 
Χ. Ἰ. Πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος πρὸς διδασκαλίαν, κ. τ. λ.----ὦ Tim. iii, 
15, 16. 

* Thus Bishop Middleton observes :—“ This is one of the texts usually adduced 
in support of the inspiration of the Jewish Scriptures; but it has been doubted whether 
the rendering of the English Version be the true one. * * * Mr. Wakefield re- 
marks, that the ‘ Athiopic alone of the old Versions does not omit «ai, and that the 
Ethiopic is with him equivalent to all the rest in a difficult or disputed passage.’ 
Notwithstan ling this declaration, Mr. W., without assigning any reason, renders in 


LECT. VI.| SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 243 


upon the grammatical or other difficulties,’ it is manifestly ime 
possible, however we translate the words, that S. Paul could have 
meant by them anything else than the whole body of the Old 
Testament writings ; since no Jew,—and he was addressing a man 
of Jewish descent, to whom he had just appealed as being versed 
in the sacred literature of the nation,—could have attached any 
other meaning to his language, or could have supposed that, in 
the expressions here employed, some particular writings only, or 
certain portions of them, were referred to as the work of the 
Spirit of God.* This passage, indeed, does no more than apply 
the general principle laid down by 8. Peter in each of his 
Epistles, namely, that the Spirit of Christ ‘‘ was in the prophets ;” 
and that “holy men of God spake as they were moved by the 
Holy Ghost,”* 


defiance of the Aithiopic, ‘every writing inspired by God 7s useful,’ &c. I agree, how- 
ever, with him in his translation of πᾶσα γραφῆ * * * and I take the assertion 
to be, ‘every writing (viz., of the ἱερὰ γράμματα just mentioned) is Divinely inspired, 
and is useful,’ ἄρ. Ido not recollect any passage in the New Testament in which 
two Adjectives, apparently connected by the Copulative, were intended by the Writer 
to be so unnaturally disjoined.”—Doctrine of the Greek Article, Rose’s ed., p. 391. On 
the other hand, Dr. Pye Smith translates: ‘‘ Every writing Divinely inspired [is] also 
profitable for instruction,” &c.—on which one may ask how is the absence of ἐστί to 
be accounted for? ‘It is evident (continues Dr. Smith) that the Apostle, in ver. 16, 
resumes distributively what he had before advanced collectively : so that ‘every writ- 
ing Divinely inspired’ is a description, by which the Apostle designates each and every 
one of the writings comprised under the well-understood collective denomination τὰ 
ἱερὰ γράμματα, the holy writings."—The Scripture Testimony to the Messiah, vol i. note, 
p. 32. 3rd ed. 

ι Winer (“Grammatik,” Abschn. iii. § 17, s. 104), lays down the following general 
anon respecting the use of the article. “The article stands before a substantive con- 
hected with πᾶς in the singular, when this adjective describes the totality of the ob- 
ject, and is to be translated ‘the whole’—e. g. ‘the whole city—rxdoa ἡ méAuc—S. 
Matt. vili. 34; xxi. 10.” Cf. S. Matt. vi. 29; 5. Luke, ii. 1. When, on the other 
hand πᾶς denotes some object out of a multitude, and is to be rendered ‘every,’ the 
article is wanting”’—cf. πᾶν dévdpov—S. Matt. iii. 10; πᾶσα dapayS—S Luke, iii. 5. 
This Canon does not, however, apply to the case of proper names: e. g. Herod “ was 
troubled and all Jerusalem (πᾶσα ‘lepoc.) with him”—S. Matt. ii. 3; ** Let the whole 
house of Israel (πᾶς οἷκος Ἰσραηλὴ know, ὅο."---α οἵβ, ii. 36 (cf ἐπέβλεψε πᾶς οἶκος 
᾿Ισραῆλ----Ἰ Sam. vii. 2, 3; ὀπίσω παντὺς οἴκου ‘lovda—Neh. iv. 16) :—where οἷκ. ‘lop. Be 
according to the Old Testament usage, and the practice of the LXX. (cf. χαρμοσυνῶν 
οἴκου ’lspayA—Judith, viii. 6): takes the nature of a proper name. So also, in the 
New Testament, in the words τὰ πρόβατα τὰ ἀπολωλότα οἴκου lopayA—S. Matt. x. 6, 
and xv. 24. Now if any term can strictly claim the title of a proper name, from its 
exclusive application to a single object, assuredly γραφή is such.—See supra, p. 240, 
note °. 

2 Tollner (“ Die σον], Hingebung,” 5. 228) well observes, that S. Paul must have 
expected that Timothy would understand the terms which he employed in the same 
sense which the Jews of his time were accustomed to affix to them. If, on the other 
hand, dissenting from the well-known doctrine of the Jews as to the inspiration of 
their sacred books, the Apostle nevertheless made use of expressions which they 
could only understand in a sense different from that which he desired that his words 
should convey, he has written so as to confirm an error, 

3 The prophets searched “‘ what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in 


244 SCRIPTURAL PROOF. _ [LECT. VI. 


The point of view from which the Apostles thus regarded the 
Old Testament suggests an immediate answer to the questions, 
How did they judge of their own writings ? and, By what prepos- 
sessions on the subject of Inspiration were they influenced ? 
While they plainly announced their belief that the Old Testa- 
ment is the work of the Holy Ghost, they, with equal distinct- 
ness, proclaimed, as a leading doctrine of the Gospel, that in their 
days spiritual gifts were diffused in a greater measure than in any 
former age. If, therefore, they regarded the Old Testament as 
authoritative and infallible, because it was “‘ given by Inspiration 
of God,” no less authority and infallibility must they have as- 
cribed to the writings composed by themselves —bountifully en- 
dowed, as they were, by the same Divine Spirit. This inference 
would be legitimate, even if we could not point to any express 
statement respecting that supernatural assistance which they re- 
ceived as authors of the New Testament. Let us merely conceive 
that they did not depart from the whole frame of thought which 
prevailed around them, and we can at once confidently pronounce 
as to their estimate of those portions which they themselves con- 
tributed to the Canon of Scripture. But if their express state- 
ments on this subject be taken into account, it is of itself manifest 
that they who, as Jews, well knew what was the signification of 
the words “‘ the Spirit of the Lord fell upon me,” must have ap- 
prehended, in a similar manner, the meaning of the promises of 
Christ. which we are about to consider: and we may safely infer 
that in every exigency they counted upon, and failed not to re- 
ceive, a degree of aid and guidance corresponding to that by 
which the prophets had been directed, and of which the prophets 
also had had previous assurance. Thus, when Moses had pleaded 
—“O my Lord, 1 am not eloquent * * * but I am slow of 
speech, and of a slow tongue ;” “the Lord said unto him, Who 
hath made man’s mouth? * * * have not I, the Lord? 
Now, therefore, go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee 
what thou shalt say.”* And that this promise was not to rest 


them did signify ;” and again, “ The things which are now reported unto you by them 
that have preached the Gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven.” 
—1S. Pet. i. 11, 12: see also 2 8. Pet. i. 21. 

1 Exod. iv. 10-12. Cf. “My Spirit that is upon thee, and My words which 1 
have put in thy mouth”—TIsai. lix. 21; “The Lord said unto me, Say uot I am a 
child * * * whatsoever I command thee, thou shalt speak. * * * Then the 
Lord put forth His hand, and touched my mouth. And the Lord said unto me, Be 


LECT. VI.] SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 245 


here, but that it was to apply to the succession also of prophets 
after Moses, was again expressly declared by Jehovah Himself’: 
“T will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren like 
unto thee, and will put My words in his mouth ; and he shall 
speak unto them all that I shall command him :”’—words which, 
as the context proves, must have related in their primary sense 
to the Prophetic Office in general, although they were fully real- 
ized only in the Person of Christ. 

To the New Testament writers similar assurances were given. 
We are told that Christ, on four distinct occasions’ previously to 
His passion, promised His Disciples the assistance of the Holy 
Ghost ;—the promises of Divine aid which He gave them after 
His Resurrection being altogether subsidiary to His former state- 
ments.’ The first occasion on which such an assurance was given 


hold I have put My words in thy mouth.”—Jer. i. 7-9. “1 am full of power by the 
Spirit of the Lord * * * to declare unto Jacob his transgression and to Israel 
his sin.”—Micah, iii. 8. 

1 Deut. xviii. 18. It has often been argued that these words refer exclusively to 
a single individual, and consequently to the Messiah alone. But the context seems 
decisive against this view. The contrast with the false prophets, which is there in- 
stituted, requires us to understand a plurality of individuals opposed to them; while, 
as nothing in the passage points to a single person endowed with special prophetic 
gifts,—so everything suggests the application to the collective body of the true pro- 
phets of Jehovah. The use of the singular number,—n723 “a Prophet,”—has, indeed, 
been strongly pressed in opposition to the admissibility of this interpretation: but we 
have an exact parallel in the use of the singular 757, “ἃ King’”—Deut. xvii. 14-20. 
The occasion, too, on which Moses employed this form of speech at once accounts for 
it. His design, in the book of Deuteronomy, is to announce each crisis in the future 
history of his nation: for it is his duty, as Legislator, to provide for each exigency 
which is to come. He accordingly declares that, whenever need may require, a true 
prophet shall appear in Israel. The greater the need, therefore, and the longer the 
interval during which this promise might remain suspended, the more distinguished 
must be the fulfilment of the prediction; and in this consideration we see the force 
of the allusions in the New Testament.—<Acts, iii. 22; vii. 37. Even without such 
allusions, indeed, we might of ourselves discern how Christ alone has fully realized 
this Theocratic ideal of Prophecy,—He who has accomplished for the human race, 
what the prophets attempted for a single nation: but still the fact of the primary 
reference of the words remains unaffected. The following conclusions result: (1.) 
All prophecy, which is not of Hebrew origin, is excluded by the Law (cf. ver. 15— 
“from the midst of thee, of thy brethren”—77mN72 J27p7).  (2.) Every true prophet 
must resemble Moses (“like unto me”—"275): i. e. there can be no opposition be- 
tween the earlier and later revelation of God: the one being a necessary continuation, 
and development of the other. {3.) The prophet must receive a special call from Je- 
hovah (‘The Lord thy God will raise up”—n7p*);—herein consists the distinction 
between the Prophet and the Priest. (4.) By virtue of this special appointment, such 
a Prophet represents Jehovah to the people:—Jehovah “puts His words in his 
mouth” (ver. 18); and the prophet speaks “in His name,” (ver. 20). And thus, as 
has been aiready observed (Lecture iv. p. 156), the Law, without calling forth the full 
activity of Prophecy, recognised its existence, and announced its privileges See 
Havernick, “ Hinleit,” Th. τι. Abth. ii. 3. 9 ff 

2 See C. F. Fritzsche, ‘“‘ De Revelat. notione Biblica,” p. 54. ; 

3 E.g. “Behold J send the promise of My Father upon you,” &c.—S. Luke, 
xyiv. 49. Cf Acts i 8. 





246 SCRIPTURAL PROOF. [LECT. Vi 


was when He instructed and sent forth the Twelve, as we read 
in the tenth chapter of 8. Matthew’s Gospel ;’ the second was 
during that discourse to His disciples which has been preserved 
in the twelfth chapter of 8S. Luke ;’ the third was on the third 
day of the week in which He suffered, ‘‘ as He sat upon the Mount 
of Olives ;”* and the fourth promise is contained in the discourse 
which 8. John has recorded in the fourteenth and following 
chapters of his Gospel. These passages are at once reducible to 
two classes ; the three former being so similar in their import 
that they may be considered together, and apart from the fourth. 

I. Each of the passages of which the first class consists ex- 
presses the same idea :—‘‘ When they deliver you up, take no 
thought how or what ye shall speak ; for it shall be given you in 
that same hour what ye shall speak: for it is not ye that speak, 
but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.”* In such 


1 Ver. 19, 20. See, infra, note “. 

? “ When they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, 
take ye no thought (μὴ μεριμνήσητε): for the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same 
hour what ye ought to say.”—S. Luke, xii. 11, 12. 

° §. Mark, xiii. 3; see Wieseler, ‘‘Chronol. Synopse der vier Evang.,” 5. 393. 
The forms of this promise are as follows: ‘ When they shall lead you, and deliver 
you up, take no thought beforehand (μὴ προμεριμνᾶτε) what ye shall speak, neither 
do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you (ὃ ἐὰν δοθῇ ὑμῖν) in that 
hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.”—-S. Mark, xiii. 
11. “Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before (μὴ προμελετᾷν) what 
ye shall answer: for I will give you (Ey® γὰρ δώσω ὑμῖν) a mouth and wisdom, 
which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay or resist.’—S. Luke, xxi. 14, 
15. Cf. ‘They were not able to resist the wisdom and the Spirit by which he [S. 
Stephen] spake.”—Acts, vi. 10. 

* Ὅταν δὲ παραδιδῶσιν ὑμᾶς, μὴ μεριμνῆσητε πῶς ἢ τί λαλήσητε" δοθήσεται γὰρ ὑμῖυ 
ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ὥρᾳ τί λαλήσετε" οὐ γὰρ ὑμεῖς ἐστε οἱ λαλοῦντες, ἀλλὰ τὸ Πνεῦμα τοῦ Ha- 
τρὺς ὑμῶν τὸ λαλοῦν ἐν ὑμῖν.----ἶϑδ, Matt. x. 19, 20. Perrone attempts to evade, as fol- 
lows, the force of these texts; arguing against the method adopted by Michaelis, of 
inferring the inspiration of the Books of the New Testament from the inspiration of 
the Aposties: ‘Sic, e. g. Matt. x. 19, 20, loquitur Christus de fortitudine quam, pre- 
sidibus coram positi, discipuli Sui essent patefacturi, atque de sapientia qua sua es- 
sent daturi responsa: idem dic de Lue. xii. 11, 12; Mare. xiii. 11; et iterum Lue. 
xxi. 14, 15.”—loc. cit. p. 98. It is to be noticed, in addition to what I have already 
said, p. 239, note |, that this is precisely the argument by which Le Clere (next to 
Spinoza, the chief assailant of Inspiration during the 17th century), has attempted to 
evade these same texts. Having quoted S John, xvi. 13, and 8. Luke, xii. 11,—of 
which he observes, ‘‘ Ce sont les deux passages les plus formels, que l’on puisse citer 
sur cette matiére,”—Le Clere proceeds: ‘‘ Pour commencer par le dernier, je remarque 
premiérement, qu’il ne promet point une inspiration perpétuelle, mais seulement en 
certaines occasions, savoir quand les Apétres seroient conduits devant les tribunaux 
des juges.”—p. 240. In such situations, he adds: ‘‘on reconnoit sans peine qu’ils par- 
lent avec beaucoup de pieté et de cowrage, mais il semble qu’ ils ne disent rien qu’ on 
ne puisse bien dire sans inspiration. * * * Au reste, on ne peut pas trouver 
étrange que par le S. Esprit, ou l’ Esprit de Dieu, on entende Esprit de sainteté et de 
constance que |’ Evangile inspire,” &c.—Sentimens de quelques Theolog. de Hollande, 
Lettre xi., p. 243, &e. 


LECT. Vi.] SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 247 


words Christ plainly declared that they should be guided by a 
real positive influence from without. A marked distinction is 
drawn between the result of their own judgment and what the 
Spirit of God was to effect ;—the expression “it is not ye that 
speak” being placed in strong contrast to the assurance that ‘‘ the 
Spirit of their Father should speak 7m them.” The three prom- 
ises which we are now considering embrace, moreover, all the 
public occasions on which the Apostles could be called upon to 
defend themselves, whether before councils or synagogues, before 
governors or kings. In every such case the assurance is to the 
same effect— Take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, 
neither do ye premeditate ; but whatsoever shall be given to you 
in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the 
Holy Ghost :” where the oljective nature of the Divine influence 
is denoted by the words ‘it shall be given you,” which are con- 
tinually employed by the New Testament writers to express this 
fact. Thus, 8. Peter subsequently speaks of “‘ the wisdom given” 
to “our beloved brother Paul ;”* and 8. Paul himself writes : 
“When James, Cephas, and John perceived the grace that was 
given unto me.”” The practical signification, indeed, of all such 
assurances may be briefly illustrated by the words with which a 
New Testament prophet, Agabus, introduced his prediction: 
“Thus saith the Holy Ghost.”* 

In connexion with this class of promises, and as 5 the fittest ex- 
planation of their design, we must bear in mind the language of 
Christ to the Eleven shortly before His Ascension—‘“ Go ye, 
therefore, and make disciples of all nations * * * teaching 
them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you : 
and lo! Iam with you alway, even unto the end of the world.’”* 
The inference from such words,.regarded as the sequel of the 
former passages, is plain. If any confidence is to be placed in 
the Gospel narratives, repeated pledges were given from the lips 
of the Son of God Himself, that no occasion should arise during 
the course of their ministerial labors in which the Holy Ghost 
should not instruct them “‘ how and what they should say :”’— 
other words, that in every exercise of their Apostolic office, both 

1 Κατὰ tiv δοθεῖσαν αὐτῷ codiav.—2 5, Pet. iii. 15. 
3 Tvovrec τὴν χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι.---(18]. ii. 9. 


8 Τάδε λέγει τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ “Αγέον.---- οἵδ, xxi. 11. 
4 5, Matt. xxviii. 19, 20. 


248 SCRIPTURAL PROOF. [LECT. σι. 


the form and the substance of their statements’ should be given 
them “in that same hour.”? We know that this was the inter- 
pretation which the Apostles themselves placed upon their Lord’s 
words ; and hence 8. Paul entreats the Ephesians to pray on his 
behalf “that utterance might be given unto him, that he may 
open his mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the Gos- 
pel.”* Such assurances of Christ’s continued presence with them 
in their teaching are most conclusive ; for it cannot, surely, be 
recarded as either just or reasonable to maintain that the Divine 
influence guarded the Apostles from error when orally conveying 
the Truth to their hearers ; but that they were left to all the 
hazard of human fallibility when instructing by letter their con- 
verts in Corinth or Colosse,—when writing to the Twelve Tribes 
“which are scattered abroad,” or to “the strangers scattered 
throughout Pontus and Bithynia,’”* 

As to the actual fulfilment of their Master’s promises, the 
sacred narrative enables us ourselves to form an opinion. It has 
been observed, by one of the chiefs of modern Rationalism, that, 
“if we embrace in historic glance the record of the origin of 
Christianity, from the last evening of the life of Jesus, to the 
close of the fifty days next following, it is undeniable that, in that 
short interval, something of a nature encouraging beyond what 
was ordinary must have taken place, to transform the trembling 
and irresolute Apostles of that evening into men exalted above 
all fear of death, who could exclaim before the most embittered 
judges of the murdered Jesus,—‘ We must obey God, rather 
than man.’’”* This remark is as just as it is confirmatory of our 

1 See supra, p. 246, note *: πῶς ἢ τί---πῶς indicating the form, and τί the sub- 
s‘ance of the statements which they were to make. 

? Tt is to be remarked that this phrase occurs in each of the three promises :— 
ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ Gpa—S. Matt. x. 19, and S. Mark, xiii. 11; ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ dpa—S. Luke, xii. 
12: see also next note, 

5 "Iva μοι δοθῇ λόγος ἐν ἀνοίξει τοῦ στόματός μου, ἐν παῤῥησίᾳ γνωρίσαι, κ. τ. A— 
Eph. νἱ. 19. Cf. ΟἹ]. iv. 8; 2 Thess. iii. 1; and “Open Thou my lips,” &c.—Ps. li. 
15. In opposition to a common error,—viz., that the Apostles were distinguished 
from the Old Testament prophets, by the fact of being permanently endowed with the 
highest gifts of the Spirit,—it appears both from the tenor of Christ’s promises, and 
from 8S. Paul’s practice, as here, of soliciting the prayers of the Church on his behalf, 
that Inspiration, in its highest sense, and as it related to the promulgation of the Gos- 
pel, was not conferred except on special occasions, and for special purposes. Of. 
supra, Lecture vy. p. 221, note *. 

* See supra, p. 236, note’, the remarks of Bishop Warburton on this subject. 

5. Dr. Paulus, “ Kommentar,” Th. iii. 5. 867—quoted by Tholuck “ Glaubwird- 


igkeit der evang. Geschichte,” 5, 371. Tholuck adds that even Strauss admits this 
tran:formatin in the character and conduct of the Apostles to be inexplicable, unless 


LECT, VI.] SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 249 


present argument, A transformation of the whole nature of the 
Apostles seems to have followed Christ’s Ascension, analogous to 
that described in the words of Samuel to Saul: “The Spirit of 
the Lord will come upon thee, and thou shalt be turned into 
another man.”* We find these poor fishermen of Galilee, whose 
whole tone of thought and line of conduct before their Lord’s de- 
parture had remained so true to the character of ‘‘ unlearned and 
ignorant men,” changed, on a sudden, into the courageous rivals 
of the philosophers and rhetoricians of their age. We see them, 
at first restless from doubts and fettered by prejudice, now im- 
movable in their convictions and alive to each new aspect of the 
Truth, Formerly timid and wavering, they now are fearless and 
resolved. Their delusive dream of temporal deliverance becomes 
a real assurance of eternal Redemption. Their narrow estimate 
of the Divine covenant with their nation expands, under the 
guidance of the Holy Ghost, into the sublime conception of “ the 
Israel of God,” 

That this subjection to the Divine influence was no result of 
their spontaneous efforts, no effect of their own volition, we can 
collect from the language of those who were the subjects of that 
influence, under both the Old and the New Testament. Jere- 
miah tells us that, because the word of the Lord was daily made 
a reproach unto him, he had said, ‘‘I will not make mention of 
Him, nor speak any more in His name. But His word was in 
mine heart as a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I was 
weary with forbearing, and I could not stay.’* Such, too, is 8. 


SOMETHING extraordinary be supposed to have occurred during this interval. The 
Apologists, he observes, with justice insist upon the fact that—‘‘der ungeheure Um- 
schwung * * * sich nicht erkldren liesse, wenn nicht in der Zwischenzeit ETWAS 
ganz ausserordentlich Ermuthigendes vorgefallen wiire.”—Jbid. 

11 Sam. x. 6. 

? This idea has been finely expressed by 8. Gregory the Great: “Tune Petrus 
negavit in terra, cum latro confiteretur in Cruce. * * * Hcce gaudet Petrus in 
verberibus, qui ante in verbis timebat. Ht qui prius ancillze voce requisitus timuit, 
post adventum Sancti Spiritus vires principum czsus premit.”—Jn Evang. Hom. 
xxx. lib. ii, t. i. p. 1580. 

3 Jer. xx. 8,9. See also the seventh verse, the force of whichis lost in the Eng- 
lish Version: the marginal reading, however, approaches the true meaning—‘‘ Ὁ 
Lord, thou hast deceived me, (marg. “ enticed”) and J was deceived (marg. ‘ enticed” :) 
thou art stronger than I, and hast prevailed: I am in derision daily,” &c.—where the 
original conveys a sense still stronger than “enticed ;” denoting—“ Thou hast put 
forth Thy powers of persuasion ("2n7n=5), and I have suffered myself to be persuaded 
(ΘΝ), as Gesenius renders:—‘‘mn5, Niph.—sibi persuaderi passus est; Pi.—per- 
suasit alicui (πείθω) Jer. xx. 7.” Of. “15 not My Word like a fire, saith the Lord 
and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces ?”—Jer. xxiii. 29. See also Ps, 
Xxxix. 2, 3. 


250 SCRIPTURAL PROOF, [LECT, VI. 


Paul’s express assertion with respect to the urgency of the Di- 
vine impulse :—‘‘ Though I preach the Gospel, I have nothing 
to glory of : for necessity is laid upon me ; yea, woe is unto me, if 
I preach not the Gospel !”” 

II. Those sayings of our Lord recorded by 8. John, which 
conveyed to the Disciples the second class of promises above re- 
ferred to, come next under consideration. Here too, as in the 
other passages which have been already dwelt upon, the gift of 
the Holy Ghost forms the subject of the assurance : ‘I will pray 
the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that He 
may abide with you for ever,—even the Spirit of Truth ;” to 
which it is subsequently added that their Master’s presence was 
to be supplied in such a sense that His departure would prove a 
real good: “ It is expedient for you that I go away ; for, if I go 
not away, the Comforter will not come unto you.”* ‘The Apostles 
who had followed their Divine Teacher during His sojourn on 
earth were, no doubt, acquainted with the facts of His life: but 
there was, as yet, no olject of Christian Faith, in the true sense 
of the term, until the Lord had been received into glory, and had 
triumphed over death and the grave. When He was removed 
from them, and His-words no longer served as their guide, it be- 
came indispensable that His Presence should be supplied. The 
suggestions of the Holy Ghost were then required in order to 
qualify them for their future labors :—to develop the full signifi- 
cation of the great events of which they had been spectators, and 
which now lay before them as matters of history ; to give them a 
just insight into the Divine counsels ; to enable them to insert 
in their teaching, without imterweaving any heterogeneous ele- 
ment, each particular circumstance as it contributed to the eluci- 
dation of the general scheme ; to remind them of what had 
passed, without any distortion of the whole series of facts ; and, 
in fine, to disclose the future so that they might be able to de- 
cide, without error, in all the exigencies which should befall the 
Church. And this, in point of fact, is what the language of Christ 

1 1 Cor. ix. 16. Compare the language of Amos, the analogy of whose history 
to that of 5. Paul has been pointed out supra, Lecture iv. p. 162: ‘‘Surely the Lord 
God will do nothing, but He revealeth His secret unto His servants the prophets. 
Tne lion hath roared; who will not fear? The Lord God hatk spoken ; who can but 
prophesy ?”——Amos, iii. 7, 8; see also ch, vii. 15. 


2 Τὸ Πνεῦμα τῆς ’AAnGeiac.—S. John, xiv. 16, 1%. 
* $ John, xvi. 7. 


LECT. VI.] SCRIPTURAL PR )OF. 251 


here amounts to, The Holy Spirit, Who was thenceforward to 
supply His Personal Presence, is emphatically described as ‘‘ the 
Spirit of Truth,” by Whose agency the most essential features 
of the Gospel were to be gradually unveiled : “ At that day ye 
shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in Me, and I in you.” 
The influence of their Divine Guide shall be directed, they are 
told, to the attainment of two separate ends ;—the additional 
information to be imparted by the Comforter being contrasted 
with what the Disciples had already learned from their Lord, 
while “‘He spake unto them, being yet present with them.” 
“The Holy Ghost,” shall not only “ bring all things to their re- 
membrance, whatsoever Christ had said unto them ;” He shall 
also ‘‘teach them all things :’—thus not only reproducing the 
doctrines which they had already heard, but imparting fresh 
knowledge from the treasures of Divine Truth.’ For the recep- 
tion of such spiritual gifts, and for the due performance of their 
future duties, the Disciples had been qualified by having been 
companions of their slaster during His earthly pilgrimage. 
“When the Comforter is come, Whom I will send unto you from 
the Father, even the Spirit of Truth which proceedeth from the 
Father, He shall testify of Me, and ye also shall bear witness, 
because ye have been with Me from the beginning.”* Here it is 
manifestly implied that the Holy Ghost was further to testify of 
Christ ; and, therefore, that the future knowledge of His follow- 
ers was not to be confined to what they had heard from Himself ; 
—an inference which is fully established by the additional state- 
ment: ‘I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot 
bear them now : howbeit, when He, the Spirit of Truth, is come, 
He will guide you into all truth, * * * He will show you 
things to come. * * * He shall take of Mine, and shall 
show it unto you.” In these words the Lord plainly intimated 
that the guidance of the Spirit was designed to supply the need 
which the Apostles had of still further instruct'on, The influence’ 


1 §. John, xiv. 20. 

2 “These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the 
Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My name, He 
shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance whatsoever I 
have said unto you.”—Jbid. xiv. 25, 26. 

5 §. John, xv. 26, 21. 

* Thid. xvi. 12-15. Cf. the remarks of Steudel, “ Ueber Inspiration der Apostel 
und damit Verwandtes,” published in the Tubingen Journal for 1832 (Heft ii. a 


128 ff), 


252 SCRIPTURAL PROOF. [LECT. νὰ 


of the Holy Ghost was to be exerted, not merely in reproducing 
with infallible accuracy what they had heard from Christ, or in 
guarding them from all error in their inferences from the facts of 
His life, but also in suggesting the knowledge of “ the many 
things” which He had still to say to them, but which they could 
not then “ bear.” In fact, our Lord here distinguishes the two 
elements of the Divine agency to which I have so repeatedly 
called attention, under the names of Revelation and Inspiration. 
He separates that exercise of supernatural power which is truly 
creative and derived from the Eternal Word, through the Spirit, 
and which consists in disclosing new truths,—from that distinct 
agency of the Spirit Himself whereby “ all things are brought to 
remembrance.” It is not said, ‘the Spirit shall teach you all 
things which I have told you ;’—such matters He was to recall to 
their recollection ; but He was to unfold those new features of 
the Gospel scheme which had not, as yet, been communicated to 
mankind. Of this fact we shall presently examine some striking 
instances : meanwhile, it may be noticed here, that the extent 
of this latter assurance completely removes the idea that the 
spiritual aid which it announced was to be confined to such 
contingencies as might appear to have been more specially im- 
plied in the former group of promises ; namely, when they should 
-¢ brought “unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and 
powers.’ We can also infer from the language of 8. John that 
the additional instructions of the Holy Ghost were to bear the 
same stamp of infallibility as those which had been imparted by 
Christ Himself. On no just or reasonable interpretation does this 
promise lend the slightest color to the notion that the guidance 
into truth, and preservation from forgetfulness to which it refers, 
related merely to the ‘ leading truths’ of the Gospel. The plain 
inference from such expressions as “all the truth,’ and “ shall 


1 See supra, p. 246, note 3. 

2 T have adopted this rendering of πᾶσαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν in 8. John, xvi. 13 (where 
Tischendorf and Lachmann, after Codices A and B, read τὴν ἀλήθειαν πᾶσαν), instead 
of that given in our English Version “ail truth,” chiefly for the purpose of noting that 
the argument which I have founded on the passage is unaffected by the adoption of 
cither translation, Bishop Middleton, who translates ‘all the truth,” does not speak 
with perfect certainty, observing: ‘‘It is frequently difficult, and even impossible, to 
ascertain where the Article should be used before abstract Nouns; yet there is not 
the same difficulty when such Nouns are preceded by wdc.”—loc. cit. p. 258. In what 
ever manner the words are to be translated, it is manifest, on the one hand, that our 
Lord assured His Disciples that they should be divinely guided in every particular 
whick related to the preaching of the Gospe!; and, on the other hand, that He did 


LECT. VI.] SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 253 


teach you all things,” is simply this, that when the Apostles acted 
in any way as the official teachers of Christianity, not only was 
every species of error to be excluded, but new truths also were 
to be unfolded, as need required. 

The character and extent of our Lord’s assurance in this pas- 
sage of itself supplies a complete answer to a modern theory of 
Inspiration which is founded upon a misconception opposed in 
the last Discourse." According to this theory, there was no 
peculiar spiritual gift conferred upon the sacred writers :—their 
pre-eminence over others consisting merely in their greater op- 
portunities of becoming acquainted with the facts of their great 
Teacher’s life ; and in their having received the truths of Chris- 
tianity as they were enunciated by Himself. The spiritual 
guidance bestowed upon them was, it is maintained, identical 
with that in which all Christians, less favorably circumstanced, 
equally share : its effect, in the case of the Apostles, being nothing 
more than an opening out, and a developing of certain results 
from their previous experience, and awakened spiritual life.’ The 


not promise to impart to them supernatural information in every department of humar 
knowledge. To draw such an inference from His words would be to violate the most 
elementary principles of reasoning; and to take in a universal sense a term which, 
as the whole tenor of the discourse in which it occurs proves, must be understood in 
a limited sense, and as denoting solely Hvangelical Truth. Archdeacon Hare has de- 
voted several pages, as I venture to think very unnecessarily, to a refutation of this 
exaggerated view of the passage; and I advert to his remark merely for the purpose 
of drawing attention to the following statement: “ Assuredly the misprision of this 
passage has aided in fostering the delusive notion that the Bible is a kind of encyclo- 
pedia of universal knowledge, and that every expression in it bearing however allu- 
sively upon astronomy, or geology, or history, has the same Divine attestation of its 
infallibility as what it reveals concerning God, and concerning man in his relation to 
God. * * * This notion has ever been still more injurious to Religion than to 
Science: for Science soon overleaps and treads down the fences which are thus 
erected to check it; but as Religion cannot possibly maintain the positions, which she 
is thus engaged to defend, her failure in this field shakes the confidence in her power 
even within her own province.”—The Mission of the Comforter, note B. p. 395. 

In this passage the writer appears to me to have fallen into another extreme. I 
must, however, refer the reader to Lecture viii. ¢nfra, for some remarks in reply to the 
general idea thus put forward respecting the fallibility of Scripture when alluding to 
“astronomy, or geology, or history.” 

1 See the remarks on the nature of that Scriptural influence which presided over 
the composition of the Bible, as distinguished from the ordinary graces of the Holy 
Ghost to which the name Inspiration has also been assigned,—p. 230, &e. 

2 Such is the theory of Elwert, a follower of Schleiermacher, to whose views I 
have already referred, Lecture v. p. 221, note *; and from whose works Steudel, in 
the treatise quoted above, p. 251, note 4, adduces the following propositions: ‘ The 
“‘nfluence of the Holy Spirit, in the case of the Apostles, was not a suggestion of 
slaborated ideas, and knowledge; still less a dictation of words: but the Spirit wrought 
in them Faith, by virtue of which they appropriated the revelation of Christ; and 
from this revelation, by means of Faith, they aeveloped, in the natural way of re- 
flection, their religious ideas and conceptions. * * * Infallibility is not to be 


254 SCRIPTURAL PROOF. [LECT. VL 


foregoing remarks, of themselves, afford, as I have just observed, 
a sufficient refutation of this theory ; but it is completely sub- 
verted by what the New Testament tells us of the two great 
preachers of Christianity, S. Peter and 8. Paul.’ 

The most superficial glance at the history of 8. Peter must 
render it impossible to maintain that his statement of Christian 
doctrine on the Day of Pentecost was the mere deduction of his 
own judgment from his previous knowledge of Christ’s life and 
acts. Should it, however, be regarded as a matter of doubt 
whether his development of the Christian scheme on that occa- 


attributed to them in historical matters of a collateral nature, in unessential points of 
deduction from their ideas, and of statement of doctrine ;—and generally, in anything 
which when compared with the foundation of Faith (regarded as the spirit of Holy 
Scripture), appears to be formal.”—loc. cit. 5, 109. Ia the following number of his 
Journal (s. 3 ff), Steudel proceeds to examine the statement here made, viz., that in 
the representation of religious truth by the Apostles error could not find room; ad- 
ducing Elwert’s principle, that ‘‘ Christian knowledge is based upon a Christian frame 
of mind.” Referring to this principle, Steudel shows how the source of this writer’s 
error consists in his confounding the two significations of which the expression 
“Christian knowledge” is susceptible. This phrase denotes, (1.) the knowledge, ob- 
tained by revelation or by personal experience or historically, of what Christianity 
imports to be; or (2.) it denotes the manner in which Christian Truth (when the hés- 
torical knowledge of it has been already conveyed to us), has been appropriated by 
us, and made our own. In this latter sense our Lord observes: “If any man is 
willing (ἐών τις θέλῃ) to do His will he shall know (γνώσεται) of the doctrine whether 
it be of God.”—S. John, vii. 17. Now when Christ again tells the Apostles, “ I have: 
yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when He, 
the Spirit of Truth, is come, He shall guide you into all truth,”—He, assuredly, cannot 
have meant that the knowledge to be thus acquired was of the same nature as that re- 
sulting from the mode of appropriating Divine Truth of which He had formerly 
spoken: -He must clearly have intended to intimate those new disclosures by the 
Holy Ghost, which, like His own teaching, could subsequently be brought home to 
the hearts of believers. S. Paul points out the distinction between these two senses— 
“ Knowledge (γνῶσις [1. e. a mere acquaintance with the facts of Christianity] puffeth 
up, but charity edifieth.”—1 Cor. viii. 1: in other words, the link that unites both 
kinds of knowledge, and stamps the former as genuinely Christian, is “‘love;” or, as 
8. John declares, “he that loveth not, knoweth not (οὐκ ἔγνω) God.”—1 5. John, iv. 8. 
Uf the language of Eph. i. 17, 18, with the grounds of “ignorance” assigned in ch. 
iv. 18. From the necessity of the Spirit’s influence to evoke in the souls of all Chris- 
tians,—whether writers of Scripture, or members of the Church at large—the state 
of feeling here described, the school of Schleiermacher has strangely inferred that no 
other species of Spiritual influence was required in order originally to communicate 
Ὁ historical Christianity” to the Apostles. Who, for example, can imagine that whon 
S. Paul speaks of “the knowledge of Jesus Christ,” and “ counts all things but loss” 
in comparison with “ knowing Him, and the power of His resurrection ;”—Phil. iii. 
8-10—who, I say, can imagine that the Apostle was not already in possession of the 
whole Gospel scheme? It surely cannot be inferred from the Apostle’s fervent prayer 
for a more personal appropriation of the great truths which he had preached, that he 
had hitherto been but imperfectly acquainted with those truths themselves; or that his 
knowledge of them could have been intermingled with error. See supra, Lecture iv. 
Ρ. 143, note 3, 

* Thus passages such as Acts, iv. 8; xiii. 9; clearly imply a special illapse of 
Spiritual influence, distinct from any sense in which Inspiration, as bestowed upor 
Christians in general, can be understood. Cf. supra, Lecture v. p. 221, note +. 


LECT. VI.] SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 255 


sion were really a direct result from the inward suggestions of 
the Holy Ghost, such doubt must disappear when the subsequent 
narrative is considered, Were we ignorant, indeed, of the events 
which followed, it might have appeared inconceivable that the 
principle laid down by the Apostle in this his first address after 
the descent of the Holy Ghost,—‘‘ The promise is unto you, and 
to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the 
Lord our God shall call,” could have left behind any scruple as 
to the reception of the Gentiles into the Church of Christ. The 
account, nevertheless, of the ecstatic Vision in the tanner’s house 
at Joppa proves that 8. Peter quite misapprehended the bearing 
of these words. No one can assert for a moment that the knowl- 
edge which he derived from that Vision was the result of his pre- 
vious Christian experience. He expressly states that it was a 
completely new disclosure, which he could not have elicited of 
himself, but which God unfolded to his view, in opposition to his 
former prejudices ;"—a fact which clearly indicates that, when 
need required, the Holy Ghost poured new light upon certain of 
the Apostles’ own statements which had not previously been 
illuminated, even for themselves... We further learn from the 
sacred historian that even this revelation did not remove all oc- 
casion of doubt.* It settled, it is true, the controversy as to the 
reception of the Gentiles into the Church: but the question of 
discipline still remained open ; and this difficulty was only solved 
after protracted discussion,’ and by the renewed guidance of the 


1 Ka) πᾶσιν τοῖς εἰς μακράν .----Α οὔβ, ii. 39. 

3. S. Peter said to the company at the house of Cornelius: “ Ye know that it is 
an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of an- 
other nation; but God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or un- 
clean.”—Acts, x. 28; cf. ver. 14, 15. See Steudel, loc. cit. s. 7. It may be well to 
observe, that S. Peter in this memorable discourse conveys in six verses (ver. 36—41) 
an epitome of the Gospel of S. Mark. In ver. 36, 37, is defined the point of time 
from which the Synoptical Gospels date the opening of Christ’s ministry: ver. 38 
details His Unction by the Holy Spirit from which that ministry and its miraculous 
course proceeded: ver. 39 indicates the events in which the Evangelists were called 
to bear witness: ver. 40, 41, comprise the Lord’s Crucifixion, Resurrection, and how 
He appeared to the disciples, together with His eating and drinking with them “ after 
He rose from the dead.” Cf. Thiersch, ‘‘ Versuch zur Herstell,” s. 111. 

3 See supra, Lecture v. p. 202, note *. 

4 “And certain men which came down from Judea taught the brethren, and said, 
Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.”—Acts, 
xv. 1 &e. . 

5 “And the Apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter 
And when there Lad been much disputing (συζητησεως), Peter rose up and said,” &c.— 
ver. 6, 7. 


256 SCRIPTURAL PROOF, [LECT. VI. 


Holy Ghost.’ Thus we see how very gradually the whole truth 
burst upon the Apostles. Not even 8. Peter’s Vision displayed 
it on all its sides ; and hence, even of ourselves, we can discern 
how truly Christ could say of the revelations to be subsequently 
given, “ Ye cannot bear them now.” 

Fresh light is cast upon the nature of the Spirit’s agency in 
the case of the Apostles by the statements of 8. Paul, in his 
Epistle to the Galatians. In that Epistle he pointedly and re- 
peatedly declares, and, as one might almost say, goes out of his 
way to insist ujon the fact, that never, during many years of 
his labors as a preacher of the Gospel, had his intimacy with 
the other Apostles been such as that from it his knowledge of 
Christian doctrine could, in anywise, be explained.” As he 
dwells, with emphasis, on the additional circumstance that, in 
his final interview with the chief pillars of the Church, he had 
proved his perfect agreement with them in doctrine, and that 
those great Apostles had made no new disclosures to him,® it 
must have been his own peculiar acquirements which caused them 
to acknowledge him as a person qualified above others for la- 
boring among the Gentiles, and to entrust to him “ the Gospel 
of the uncircumcision.” Without a special revelation, the knowl- 
edge which 8. Paul thus claims for himself could only have been 
obtained from the most intimate converse with the other Dis- 
ciples of Christ ; we are compelled, therefore, to admit, in the 
absence of any such converse, that the effect of the Divine influ- 
ence was far different from that of merely casting new lght 
upon particulars of which he had been previously aware, Had 
the promised aid of the Holy Ghost been merely designed to 
unfold the sense of what Christ had taught while on earth ;— 
did the Inspiration of the Apostles, in short, merely consist in 


1 “Tt seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us (Εδοξε γὰρ τῷ Πνεύματι τῷ ᾿Αγίῳ 
kai nuiv).”—ver. 28. See infra, p. 268, note *. 

2 “T certify you, brethren, that the Gospel which was preached of me is not after 
man; for I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation 
of Jesus Christ. * * * When it pleased God * * * toreveal His Son in 
me * * * immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: neither went I up 
to Jerusalem to them which were Apostles before me: but I went into Arabia 
* %* * Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with 
him fifteen days. But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s 
brother. * * * Then, fourteen years after, I went up again to Jerusalem. * * * 
And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the 
grace that was given unto me (τὴν χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσάν por)” &—Gal. iL 
and ii. 

* ᾿Εμοὶ yap οἱ δοκοῦντες οὐδὲν προσανέθεντο.---α], iL. 6. 


LECT. VI.] SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 257 


the fact of the Divine Spirit kindling a new life im their souls 
by which a greater degree of clearness was diffused over their 
former ideas ;—how can we account for 8. Paul’s disclaimer of 


all the human means which alone could have enabled him {ο΄ 


acquire any accurate knowledge of our Lord’s teaching ? We 
can only explain this passage in his Hpistle, therefore, by admit- 
ting that the Apostle had received a direct revelation from Christ, 
imparting to him new truths, and giving him a more comprehen- 
sive insight into the doctrines of Christianity. 

S. Paul’s express statement to this effect is illustrated, in an 
interesting manner, by the fact that although he was the bearer of 
the inspired decree of the Council of Jerusalem to the Churches,’ 
—which decree, be it observed, related to the very question dis- 
cussed in his Epistle to the Galatians,—he nevér alludes to this 
decision of the Council ; nor does he, in any part of his writings, 
appeal to its authority.” Of the historical facts made known : 0 
S. Paul by immediate revelation, and which enabled him to di+- 
pense with the ordinary sources of information, I need only men- 
tion the Institution of the Eucharist ; the knowledge of which 
he expressly tells us he had “ received of the Lord.”* 

The facts, to which attention has been drawn in these latter 
remarks, afford examples of how the promise was accomplished 
that the “Comforter” was to teach the Apostles all things. 
Christ’s additional assurance, that all things were to be brought 
to their remembrance, was no less accurately fulfilled. This cir- 
cumstance the sacred writers expressly take notice of, and inti- 
mate by the established formula—éurjo6joav, Thus 8, John, hav- 
ing related the question of the Jews, “‘ What sign showest Thou 
unto us ?” and our Lord’s reply, ‘‘ Destroy this Temple, and in 
three days I will raise it up,’—goes on to explain, “ But He 
spake of the Temple of His Body: when, therefore, He was 


1 Acts, xv. 25. 

2 Thiersch (‘‘ Versuch zur Herstell.,” s. 81), on the other hand, considers this fact 
to be merely a proof that the Epistle of the ‘Council of Jerusalem” was not regarded 
as conveying permanent commands, or as a sacred document. To which I would 
answer, that the opposite conclusion seems established by the manner in which 
‘James and all the elders” subsequently appealed to this same Epistle: “ As touch- 
ing the Gentiles which believe, we have written (or rather “‘enjoined by letter,” 
επεστείλαμεν), and concluded,” &c.—Acts, xxi. 25. Of. infra, p. 268, note 2. 

3 “T have received of the Lord, that which also I delivered unto you; that the 
Lord Jesus, the same night in which He was betrayed,” &c.—1 Cor. xi. 23. Cf ch. 
xy. 3, ὅσ. 


17 


«ἅν 


258 SCRIPTURAL PROOF. [LECT. VI, 


risen from the dead, His Disciples remembered that He had said 
this unto them.”* Again, as the same Evangelist observes more 
fully :—“‘ These things understood not His Disciples at the first : 
but when Jesus was glorified, then remembered. they that these 
things were written of Him, and that they had done these things 
unto Him,” Or, to quote a still more apposite example : in the 
account of another inspired historian we read that 8. Peter, when 
describing to those “that were of the circumcision” the descent 
of the Holy Ghost in the house of Cornelius, takes occasion to 
observe,—‘‘ Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that 
He said, John indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be bap- 
tized with the Holy Ghost.’””* 

It has been already noted, when referring to the accounts 
transmitted to us in the Synoptical Gospels of the promises of 
Divine guidance which Christ gave to His disciples, that we are 
ourselves able to form an opinion as to the manner in which those 
promises have been fulfilled. The same remark may also be made 
as to the accomplishment of the assurance recorded by 8. John. 
How aptly each speech or saying, recorded by the different sacred 
writers, corresponds to the speaker’s exact position ; how the 
language of Christ soars above the range of human expression, 
and is, in all the Gospels, stamped with a unity and a sublimity 
peculiarly its own ;—how, on the other hand, the various traits 
of individual character are preserved in the case of each person- 
age whose history or words are introduced by the Evangelists, or 
in the Acts of the Apostles ;‘—all such topics have been often 
and forcibly dwelt upon. To take a single instance ; how com- 
pletely does that precious fragment of one of our Lord’s dis- 


1S. John, ii. 18-22. Cf ver. 17, where Ps. lxix. 9 is quoted, with the remark— 
“His Disciples remembered (ἐμνήσθησαν) that it was written,” &c. 

2S. John, xii. 16. Cf 8. Luke, xxiv. 8. 

® Acts, xi. 16. See the remark of Tholuck on S. John, ii. 17: “Wie sie bei 
solechen Anfiihrungen durch die iiberraschende Ueberstimmung der Sache geleitet 
wurden, zeigt die Formel éuvycbnoav.”—Comm. zum Ev. Johan., 8. 81. 

4 A competent judge has observed of the Acts of the Apostles: “It deserves par- 
ticularly to be remarked that 8. Luke has well supported the character of each person, 
whom he has introduced as delivering a public harangue, and has very faithfully and 
happily preserved the manner of speaking which was peculiar to each of his orators.” 
J. D. Michaelis, Introduction to the New Testament (Marsh’s transl., vol. iii. part 1. 
p. 332). Take, as a single example, the often quoted fact by which the Epistle of 
the Church, Acts, xv. 23-29, is shown to have been the composition of S. James; 
viz. the occurrence in its superscription of the term χαΐρειν which is found in the 
superscription of the Epistle of 8. James, but in none other of the New Testament 
Epistles. 


LECT. VI.] SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 259 


courses, commencing with the words “Come unto Me all ye that 
labor and are heavy laden,” and which S. Matthew alone of the 
Evangelists has preserved,’—bring before us the whole genius and 
spirit of those sayings of Christ which are recorded in the narra- 
tive of ‘the Apostle of Love !’ For those, indeed, who question 
the inspiration of the sacred writers it becomes a duty to explain 
how men uneducated and unrefined, writing, too, without: mu- 
tual concert, and harassed as well by internal controversy as by 
external persecution, could ever have painted such a Character’ 
as that of Christ, or how could they have preserved its peculiar 
features untinged by any colors reflected from their own.’ Or 


1S. Matt. xi. 28-30. ΟΕ also the statement of ver. 27, and of S. Like, x. 22, with 
the doctrine which is developed in the opening verses of 8. John’s Gospel. Nume- 
rous instances of this same unity of character may be adduced. Compare, for ex- 
ample, as follows: S. John, xii. 25, 26, with 8. Matt. x. 38, 39; S. John, iv. 44, with 
5. Matt. xiii. 57; 5. John, xiii. 20, with S. Matt. x. 40; S. John, xv. 20, with S. Matt. 
x. 24, &c., &e. Not less remarkable is the agreement of the Evangelists in their nam 
ratives of events. Εἰ, g. The betrayal of S. Peter; the anointing of Christ’s feet (cf 
especially S. John, xii. 7, 8, with S. Matt. xxvi. 11, 12); the conduct of Pilate, &e. 
See Tholuck’s “Gliaubwiird. der evang. Gesch.,” 5. 324 ff; and Gieseler ‘‘ Die En- 
steh. der schriftl. Evang.,” 5. 137. Hug points out that any apparent difference in 
the features of our Lord’s character, as drawn by ὃ. John and by the other Evange- 
lists, has arisen solely from the different nature of the subjects of their respective 
Gospels: S. John chiefly referring to Christ’s ministry and discourses in Judea among 
the learned of His nation, to whom it was necessary to expound His high origin, and 
His future destiny; the Synoptists, on the other hand, confining themselves, in great 
measure, to a narrative of the events in Galilee, and of our Lord’s addresses to the 
people at large. See his “ Hinleit.” Th. π. ὃ 57, 5. 184. 

2. It has been well remarked that no single expression of a trivial character, or 
which does not convey the most profound truth, has been ascribed to our Lord in the 
Gospels. Compare, on the other hand, the few sayings attributed to him and pre- 
served by Tradition, which Mr. Jones has collected in his work on the Canon, vol. 1. 
p. 408, &c. The Character of our Lord, as it stands forth in the New Testament nar- 
rative, in its unity and its sublimity, is unique in history. Are we to believe, asks 
Quinet (“Revue des deux Mondes,” 1838, p. 495), that the strange mixture of races, 
Hebrews, Greeks, Syrians, Egyptians, Romans, the Grammarians of Alexandria, and 
the Scribes of Jerusalem,—the worshippers of Jehovah, of Mithras, and of Serapis,— 
have all combined, notwithstanding their diverse origin, creeds, institutions, and man- 
ners, in inventing, with one spirit, the same ideal? So far, indeed, were the peasants 
of Palestine from having the capacity to develop this ideal, that we find the great 
majority of Christ’s Parables end with the allegation that His doctrine was too sub- 
lime for the people to comprehend. 

3 The truth of this assertion has been denied by Strauss, who alleges that S. John 
not only makes our Lord speak (e. g. ch. iii, 16-21) in “that metaphysical strain” pe- 
culiar to the Evangelist himself; but also S. John the Baptist ‘that unmystical Old 
Testament Prophet” (i. 15-18: iii. 27-36): on which facts Strauss especially insists, 
terming them, “das Hauptmoment in dieser Sache.” In reply Tholuck (loc. cz. 5, 330 
ff.) justly asks, on what ground does Strauss assume that the passage S. John, iii. 16, 
&e., is anything else than the Evangelist’s own inspired comment on his Master’s 
words? It is true that 8. John does not mark the transition from ver. 15 to ver. 16; 
but this is an ordinary feature of his style. Thus, in ch. i, 16-18, the words are as- 
suredly not those of the Baptist ;—ver. 16 (‘‘Of His fulness have all we received, and 
grace for grace”), being obviously a continuation of the words πλήρης χάριτος 
ταὶ ἀληθεΐας in ver. 14, and ver. 15 being inserted parenthetically in order to strengthen 


260 SCRIPTURAL PROOF. [LECT. VL 


when, in the New Testament history, we find details of events, 
of discourses, of parables—the significance of which often de- 
pends upon the force of a single term—all repeated, after the 
lapse of so many years, with every internal mark of truthfulness 
and accuracy,—for example, the discourses preserved in the Gos- 
pel of 8. John,—our opponents may again be fairly asked, what 
unassisted human memory could have achieved such a task as 
this ? But here, also, as in the case of the accomplishment of 
the other promises already referred to, we can summon to our aid 
a witness whose testimony is unexceptionable ; whose testimony, 
moreover, shows how weighty an argument the fact now before us 
supplies. 

One of the services which Strauss has unconsciously rendered 
to the Christian cause is the clear ight in which he has exhibited 
the alternatives between which we have to choose. This writer 
has devoted a considerable portion of his elaborate treatise to a 
discussion of two classes of opinions which are logical ‘ opposites ;’ 
and between which he considers the opposition to be that tech- 
nically termed ‘ contrariety :’—in other words, he considers both 
opinions to be false." The one class of opinions is that of the 
Rationalists ; the other, that of the Supernaturalists—as Strauss 


the Evangelist’s statement; for we are to remember that S. John had been the Bap- 
tist’s disciple. Of this mode of writing, ver. 7 affords another example. As to ch, 
iii. 27-36: (1.) The form of the passage ver. 31-36, is in obvious contrast with the 
Baptist’s usual mode of expression; and at once leads to the conclusion that the 
Hvangelist himself is the speaker. (2.) This conclusion is supported by the analogy 
of S. John’s style, of which some instances have been just exhibited. (3.) In ver. 26 
the Baptist states of Christ—‘“all men come to Him;” while at ver. 32, the Evange- 
list, speaking of a different period, alleges that “no man receiveth his testimony :” 
οὗ ch. xii. 37. (4.) If we examine the words which S. John actually does ascribe to 
the Baptist,—viz. ch. i. 19-36, and ch. iii. 27-30—we shall perceive that they either 
are identical with his language as given in the other Gospels, or contain no more than 
what is perfectly explicable as proceeding from one who filled the character of an 
Old Testament Prophet. Mr. Westcott observes: “Though no one will deny that 
S. John was led by his natural peculiarities to dwell chiefly on a certain form of our 
Lord’s teaching, and to employ a singular phraseology in setting forth its import, yet 
he nowhere attributes the key-words of his system to others: our Saviour still speaks 
in his Gospel as the ‘Son of God,’ or the ‘Son of Man,’ and not as the ‘ Word,’ or 
‘God.’ "—Elements of Gosp. Harm., p. 68. As to 8. John, iii. 10-21, Mr. Westcott, 
like Tholuck, points out that ver. 16 is a parenthesis suggested by the last words of 
ver. 15, and ver. 18-21, a similar commentary on ver. 17.—Jbid. note. 

1 Tn the Preface to the first German edition of the “ Life of Jesus,” Strauss writes: 
“The exegesis of the ancient Church set out from the double presuppositiou ; first, 
that the Gospels contained a history, and secondly, that this history was ἐν supers 
natural one. Rationalism rejected the latter of these presuppositions, but only te 
cling the more tenaciously to the former, maintaining that these books present un- 
adulterated, though only natural, history. Science cannot rest satisfied with this half 
measure: the other presupposition also must be relinquished.”—Chapman’s transl 
vol i p.x London, 1846. 


LECT. VI.] SCRIPTURAL PROOF, 261 


terms those who maintain the possibility and the fact of a Divine 
Revelation. Parallel with his series of assaults upon each par- 
ticular of the Gospel narrative, Strauss combats separately each 
of these opinions. The Rationalist—to borrow Strauss’s own de- 
scription—“ firmly maintains the historical truth of the Gospel 
narratives, and he aims to weave them into one consecutive, 
chronologically arranged, detail of facts ; but he explains away 
every trace of immediate Divine agency, and denies all super- 
natural intervention.’”’ Accepting as perfectly conclusive this 
writer’s refutation of Rationalism,’ there remain but two systems 


1 Tbid. p.19. Eichhorn and the other Rationalists, continues Strauss, considered 
“the miraculous in the sacred history as a drapery which needs only to be drawn 
aside, in order to disclose the pure historic form,”—p. 21. Of Rationalism in gen- 
eral, and its source, Quinet pointedly observes: “Ce systéme conservait fidélement, 
comme on le voit, le corps entier de la tradition; il n’ en supprimait que I’ ame. 
C’était ? application de la théologie de Spinosa dans le sens le plus borné, a la ma- 
niére de ceux qui ne voient dans sa métaphysique que |’ apothéose de la matiére 
brute.” —loc. cit. p. 469. 

2 Referring to the efforts of the rationalistic school, and especially of Paulus, 
Strauss observes: “ With regard to this account of the angelic apparition [S. Luke, i. 
26] given by Paulus —and the other explanations are either of essentially similar 
character, or are so manifestly untenable as not to need refutation,—it may be ob- 
served that the object so laboriously striven after is not attained. Paulus fails to free 
the narrative of the marvellous. * * * Paulus has in fact substituted a miracle 
of chance for a miracle of God. Should it be said, that to God nothing is impossible, 
or to chance nothing is impossible, both explanations are equally precarious and un- 
scientific. * * * The natural explanation makes too light of the incredibly ac- 
curate fulfilment of a prediction originating, as it supposes, in an unnatural. overs 
excited-state of mind. In no other province of inquiry would the realization of a 
prediction which owed its birth to a vision be found credible, even by the Rationalist. 
* * * Ts biblical history to be judged by one set of laws, and profane history by 
another ?—an assumption which the Rationalist is compelled to make, if he admits as 
credible in the Gospels that which he rejects as unworthy of credit in every other 
history :—which is, in fact, to fall back on the supranaturalistic point of view; since 
the assumption, that the natural laws which govern in every other province are not 
applicable to sacred history, is the very essential of supranaturalism.” Part 1. ch. i 
§ 18 (loc. cit. vol.i.p. 110, &c.) Again: “The narrative of the cure of the blind man 
at Bethsaida, and that of the cure of ‘a man that was deaf and had an impediment in 
his speech,’ which are both peculiar to Mark (viii. 22, &c.; vii. 32, &c.), are the es- 
pecial favorites of all rationalistic commentators. If, they exclaii, in the other evan- 
gelical narratives of cures, the accessory circumstances by which the facts might be 
explained were but preserved as they are here, we could prove historically that Jesus 
did not heal by His mere word, and profound investigators might discover the natural 
means by which His cures were effected. [Sti.uss adds in a note, “ These are nearly 
the words of Paulus, ‘Exeg. Hand-buch,’ ii. 5. 312,391."] * * * The com- 
placency of the rationalistic commentators in these narratives of Mark, is liable to be 
disturbed by the frigid observation, that, here also, the circumstances which are re- 
quisite to render the natural explanation possible are not given by the evangelists 
themselves, but are interpolated by the said commentators. For in both cases Mark 
furnishes the saliva only; the efficacious powder is infused by Paulus and Venturini: 
it is they alone who make the introduction of the fingers into the ears first a medical] 
examination, and then an operation; and it is they alone who, contrary to the sig- 
nification of language, explain the words, émitiHevar τὰς χεῖρας ἐπὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς, 
‘to lay the hands upon the eyes,’ as implying a surgical operation on those organs” — 
Part IL ch. ix, § 95. (loc. cit. vol. ii. p. 293, ὅσ.) 


262 SCRIPTURAL PROOF. [LECT. VL 


which are, logically speaking, ‘contradictory’ one to the other ; 
that is, one of which must be false, and the other true: namely, 
the system of Strauss himself—according to which the Gospel 
history is a fable,—and that which he justly describes as “ the 
doctrine of the Church.” In this point of view, therefore, I ad- 
duce Strauss as a witness in support of that argument for Inspi- 
ration from which this digression has started. When laying 
down ‘‘ criteria by which to distinguish the wnhistorical’ in the 
Gospel narrative,” Strauss gives as his negative criterion—“ That 
the matter related by an Evangelist could not have taken place 
in the manner described, when the narration is irreconcilable 
with the known and universal laws which govern the course of 
events.” Of this dogma he gives the following illustration : “ By 
the same rule it is contrary to all the laws belonging to the hu- 
man faculty of memory that long discourses, such as those of 
Jesus given in the fourth Gospel, could have been faithfully rec- 
ollected and reproduced.” All must admit that evidence more 
unexceptionable as to the fact here stated cannot be adduced ; 
and I build upon it a conclusion which is, as I have observed, the 
logical ‘ contradictory’ of that of Strauss. 

We come next to consider the manner in which the sacred 
writers express themselves as to the result of the Divine influence 
by which, as we have seen, they had been so distinctly assured 
that their words and acts were to be guided. The passages of 
Scripture which bear upon this branch of the subject may be re- 
duced to two classes. The first class illustrates the harmony 
which is assumed to subsist between the Divine and the human 
intelligence ; and affords a striking confirmation of the views re- 
specting Inspiration which have been advocated in these Dis- 
courses. The second class of passages exhibits the manner in 


1 This is the usual euphemism employed in modern times as a substitute for the 
more honest adjective—false. E. g. Neander writes: ‘‘ Matthew (iii. 7) states expressly 
that ‘many Pharisees and Sadducees came to John’s baptism ;’ and the form of the 
statement distinguishes these from the ordinary throng. It seems somewhat unhis- 
torical that these sects, so opposite to each other, should be named together here. 
* * * [t does not follow, however, that the mention of the Pharisees is in the 
same predicament: on the contrary, the historical citation of the latter, may have given 
rise to the wnhistorical’mention of the Sadducees.”—Life of Christ, § 36. (Bohn’s 
transl, p. 51.) Having noticed Neander’s assertion, Mr. Westcott acutely points out 
that in S. Matthew’s Gospel alone is the Baptist “ particularly described as address- 
ing the several bodies of the Jewish Church ;” and observes: “S Matthew gives the 
relation of each religious party of the Jews to Christianity, as S. Luke of each social 
elass.”—loc. cit. p. 91. 

2 Loc. cit. § 16, vol. i. p. 89. 


LECT. VI.] SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 263 


which inspired men claim infallible authority for their own words 
and writings. 

I. In the first place, the texts already quoted, and especially 
those from §. John’s Gospel, imply that a Presence of the Lord, 
by His Spirit, was to abide with his chosen witnesses, In such 
statements, it is also implied, that there was to be no contrast 
between the Divine and human principles of life ;—no such con- 
trast, I mean, as subsists (to borrow the language of philosophy) 
between olyect and subject : nor was there to be, on the other hand, 
a merely ‘mechanical,’ or a merely ideal intermixture of the two 
principles ; but a vital ‘dynamical’ combination, or interpenetra- 
tion of the human spirit and the Divine. It is to be inferred, 
therefore, that the effect produced in every such case by the 
Holy Spirit’s influence was a completely harmonious blending of 
the human and the Divine intelligence ; and that the result of 
this combination—whether we speak of the Old or of the New 
Testament—was that distinct energy which has received the 
name of Inspiration. This fact is clearly exemplified by the man- 
ner in which the words of the Old Testament are quoted, and 
are, at times, attributed to their Divine and their human author, 
indifferently... For example: Christ, having prefaced His quo- 
tation from one of the Psalms’ with the words, “‘ David himself 
said by the Holy Ghost,” immediately adds : ‘‘ David, therefore, 
himself calleth Him Lord, and whence is He then his son ?” 
Again: §. Matthew writes that Christ on one occasion quoted 
the Fourth Commandment with the remark, “For God com- 
manded, saying ;᾿ ὁ while in the parallel narrative of ὃ. Mark we 
read: ‘‘For Moses said, Honor thy father and thy mother.” 


1 See supra, Ὁ. 239, note *. A striking example is supplied by Christ’s quotation: 
“Have ye not read that He, which made them (ὁ ποιήσας) at the beginning, made 
them male and female; and said (καὶ εἶπεν), For this cause,” &c.—S. Matt. xix. 4, 5, 
—where καὶ εἶπεν must be referred to ὁ ποιήσας: while we know from Gen. il. 24 
that Adam was the speaker. The inference is obvious: God, by His Spirit, was the 
source from which the sentiment proceeded. 

3. Ps. cx., quoted in S. Mark, xii. 36—Adrodc Δαυϊδ εἶπεν ἐν τῷ Πν. τῷ ‘Ay. In 
proof of the assertion that ‘‘ the Spirit of God and of His Logos spoke in the authors 
of the Psalms,” Sack observes, that ‘“David’s own testimony respecting his call to 
speak through the Spirit of the Lord [‘ The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and His 
Word was in my tongue], 2 Sam. xxiii. 1, 2, is as clear as it is important ; with which 
agrees Christ’s recognition of David having spoken ‘in Spirit’ (S. Matt. xxii. 43): and 
the Apostle Peter’s recognition of his being a Prophet in the fullest sense of the word 
(Acts, ii. 30).”—Apologetik, s. 280. 

3.8. Matt. xv. 4; or as Tischendorf and Lachmann read, Ὁ γὰρ Θεὸς εἶπεν. 

* $. Mark, vii. 10—Moioje γὰρ εἶπεν. So also, in S. Luke’s avcount, (xx. 37}, 


204 SCRIPTURAL PROOF. [LECT. VL 


Once more; §. Paul applied to the Jews at Rome the language 
of Prophecy—‘ Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the pro- 
phet :” the same passage being cited by 8. John under the sim- 
ple form, “‘ These things said Hsaias.’”” And this class of illus- 
trations, founded on the manner of quoting the Old Testament, 
may be summed up by the usage, so striking in the Epistle to 
the Hebrews,’ according to which each of the three divisions of 
the former Scriptures—‘ the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms” 
—is, In express terms, adduced as the language of the Holy 
Ghost. The Old Testament writings, therefore, with reference 
to their inward principle, are described as “ given by Inspiration 
of God ;” their language being regarded as the language of the 
Holy Ghost: and thus the Evangelist can say, “All this was 
done, that it might be fulfilled .'+ch was spoken of the Lord by 
the Prophet.”* 

From all such passages it is clear, wat no artificial line of 
listinction is to be drawn between the human and the Divine 


var Lord quotes Exod. iii. 6, with the words ‘‘ Moses showed at the bush, when he 
alleth the Lord the God of Abraham,” &e.; while in S. Matthew (xxii. 31) the form 
-? citation, ‘‘ Have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God,” is given as 
being equivalent. 

Td Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον ἐλάλησεν διὰ ‘Hoaiov—Acts, xxviii, 25. Taira εἶπεν 
‘Hoaiac—S. John, xii. 41; cf. ver. 38. Origen, commenting on the quotation from the 
Psalms by 8. Peter, Acts, i 16 (τὴν γραφὴν ἣν προεῖπεν τὸ Πν. τὸ “Aytov διὰ στόματος 
Δαυΐδ), profoundly observes: προσωποποιεῖ τὸ livetua τὸ ἽΔγιον ἐν τοῖς προφήταις, καὶ 
ἐὰν προσωποποιήσῃ τὸν Θεὸν οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ Θεὸς ὁ λαλῶν, ἀλλὰ τὸ Πν. τὸ "Ay. ἐκ προσώ- 
που τοῦ Θεοῦ λαλεῖ" καὶ ἐὰν προσωποποιήσῃ τὸν Χριστὸν, οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ λαλῶν, 
ἀλλὰ τὸ Uv. τὸ “Ay. ἐκ προσώπου τοῦ Χριστοῦ λαλεῖ. οὕτω κἂν προσωποποιῆσῃ τὸν 
προφήτην, ἢ τὸν λαὺν ἐκεῖνον, ἢ τὸν λαὸν τοῦτον, ἢ ὅτι δήποτε προσωποποιεῖ, τὸ “AyLOV 
Πνεῦμα ἐστὶ τὸ πάντα προσωποποιοῦν. Homil. in Act. Apost. t. iv. p. 451. 

? (1.) The references to the description given by Moses of the Holy of Holies, and 

of the rites connected with the Temple-ceremonial, are followed by an exposition in- 
troduced with the words, “The Holy Ghost this signifying.”—Heb. ix. 8. (2.) The 
words of Jeremiah are applied with the remark, ‘‘The Holy Ghost also is a witness 
to us.”—ch. x. 15. (3.) The elaborate argument founded on Ps. ΧΟΡ. commences 
thus: ‘‘ Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith), To-day if ye will hear His voice.”—ch. 
11, 7. “In this remarkable Epistle, God or the Holy Ghost is constantly named as 
the speaker in the passages which are adduced from the Old Testament ; and this not 
only in regard to those which are accompanied in the Old Testament by the expres- 
sion, ‘God said,’ but also to those in which some man speaks,—for instance, David, as 
author of a Psalm. Herein is clearly exhibited the view of the author in relation to 
the Old Testament and the writers of it. He considered that God was, by His Holy 
Spirit, the living agent and speaker in them all: so that, consequently, the Holy 
Scriptures were to him purely a work of God, although brought forward by men.” 
Olshausen, The Genuineness of the N. 1. Writings. (Clarke’s For. Theol. Lib., p. 
CXXyv.) 
3. Τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ Κυρίου διὰ τοῦ προφήτου----, Matt. i. 22; ii. 15; where ὑπό de- 
notes that the Lord Himself was the source of what had been foretold; and διά, in 
contrast with ὑπό, points out the Prophet as the instrument, merely, by which the 
Divine will had been announced. 


LECT. VI.] SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 265 


᾿ elements of Scripture ; while the Old Testament itself presents 
Revelation to our view as it is incorporated with the realities of 
human life by means of Divine instruction and Divine acts, The 
language and the conduct of men, therefore, become the channels 
whereby God communicates His will; presenting, in some cases, 
a certain opposition to that will: while in others we find perfect 
submission to the training and the guidance of Heaven, This 
relation of mankind to the Divine Revelation the Old Testament 
exhibits, not only under the form of external events, but also by 
means of dramatic pictures of the inward life of the soul ;—as in 
the book of Job, and in the Psalms, where we look, as it were, 
into the very hearts of our fellow-men : where the Omnipotence 
of Deity is displayed, not in mastering the phenomena of nature, 
or controlling the course of history ; but where the strife takes 
place in the world within, and presents to the gaze of all time 
the different aspects of human life in conflict with the Spirit of 
God. Hence the profound remark of §. Athanasius, that the 
Psalms present to each of us a mirror wherein we can see re- 
flected the emotions of our souls.? These inspired pictures of the 
inward life of man are to be distinguished from what is more 
properly styled Revelation, partly by the express statements of 
the sacred writers themselves, partly by the manner in which, on 


1 “'The more closely we connect ourselves with them [the Psalms], the more will 
God cease to be to us a shadowy form, which can neither hear, nor help, nor judge 
us, and to which we can present no supplication."—Hengstenberg, Comm. on the 
Psalms, App. vii. (Clarke’s For. Theol. Lib., vol. iii. p. liv.) “‘ What is there necessary 
for man to know,” writes Hooker, ‘‘ which the Psalms are not able to teach? * * * 
Heroical magnanimity, exquisite justice, grave moderation, exact wisdom, repentance 
unfeigned, unwearied patience, the mysteries of God, the sufferings of Christ, the ter- 
rors of wrath, the comforts of grace, the works of Providence over this world, and 
the promised joys of that world which is to come; all good necessary to be either 
known, or done, or had, this one celestial fountain yieldeth.”—Heel. Polity, B. v. ο. 51, 
vol. ii. p. 159. Keble’s ed. Nor is this the language of “mere theologians” alone:— 
“David's life and history, as written for us in those Psalms of his, I consider to be the 
truest emblem ever given of a man’s moral progress and warfare here below. All 
earnest souls will ever discern in it the faithful struggle of an earnest human soul 
toward what is good and best. Struggle often baffled, sore bafHled, down as into en- 
tire wreck; yet a struggle never ended; ever, with tears, repentance, true uncon- 
querable purpose, begun anew. Poor human nature! Is not a man’s walking, in 
truth, always that: ‘a succession of falls?’ Man can do no other. In this wild ele- 
ment of a Life, he has to struggle onwards; now fallen, deep abased; and ever with 
tears, repentance, with bleeding heart, he has to rise again, struggle again still on- 
wards.”—Hero Worship, by Thomas Carlyle, p. 75. 

2 Καί μοι δοκεῖ τῷ ψάλλοντι γενέσθαι τούτους, ὥσπερ ἔσοπτρον εἰς TO κατανοεῖν καὶ 
αὐτὸν ἐν αὐτοῖς τὰ τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ κινήματα * * * καὶ ὅλως οὕτως ἕκαστος ψαλμὸς 
παοὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος εἴρηται καὶ συντέτακτωι, ὡς ἐν αὐτοῖς, καθὰ πρότερον εἴρηται. τὰ 
κινήματα τῆς ψυχῆ : ἡμῶν Katavocicta.—Epist. ad Marcellin., t. i. Ῥ, 988. 


266 SCRIPTURAL PROOF. [LECT. VL 


the one hand, the beams of Divine truth penetrate the physiog- 
nomy, as it were, of human life ; while, on the other hand (as in 
the book of Job, where God’s Revelation has recognised the great 
enigma of humanity,') the outlines of that human physioenomy 
are still retained : the master-hand of the Spirit preserving for 
our instruction all the features of the portrait ; supplying the 
Jover of truth with an infallible key to human knowledge and 
experience ; and the most experienced with new pictures of hu- 
man life, in exhaustless variety.” 

Turning, in the next place, to the New Testament, this same 
fact of the harmony of the Divine and the human intelligence is 
equally clear, although deducible from premises somewhat dif- 
ferent. ‘‘ Ye are witnesses of these things,” said Christ ; ‘‘ and 
behold I send the promise of My Father upon you.’”* Such was 
the pledge given to the Apostles ; and 8. Peter subsequently as- 
serts its fulfilment, in words which supply the strongest proof. 
perhaps, which the New Testament affords of the point now un- 
der consideration :—‘‘ We are His witnesses of these things, ané 
so is also the Holy Ghost.”* By thus conjoining the Holy Ghost 
as a Witness with themselves, they claim and assert the accom 
plishment of the promise already quoted ;—‘‘ The Comforter 
whom I will send unto you from the Father * * * shall 
testify of Me, and ye also shall bear witness ;’”°—a pledge to 
which 8, Peter again alludes where he speaks of himself and the 
other Apostles as men who “ preached the Gospel with the Holy 

| To quote again the language of Mr. Carlyle: “ Biblical critics seem agreed that 
our own Book of Job was written im that region of the world. I call that, apart 
from all theories about it, one of the grandest things ever written with pen. One 
feels, indeed, as if it were not Hebrew; such a noble universality, different from noble 
patriotism or sectarianism, reigns in it. A noble Book; all men’s Book! It is our 
first, oldest statement of the never-ending Problem,—man’s destiny, and God’s ways 
with him here in this earth. And all in such free flowing outlines; grand in its sin- 
cerity, in its simplicity; in its epic melody, and repose of reconcilement. There is 
the seeing eye, the mildly understanding heart. So true, every way; true eyesight 
and vision for all things; material things no less than spiritual: the Horse,-—‘ hast thou 
clothed his neck with thunder ?—he ‘laughs at the shaking of the spear!’ Such living 
likenesses were never since drawn. Sublime sorrow, sublime reconciliation; oldest 
choral melody as of the heart of mankind ;—so soft and great ;—as the summer mid- 
night, as the world with its seas and stars! There is nothing written, I think, in the 
Bible, or out of it, of equal literary merit.”—Jbid. p. 78. 

2 Of Beck, “ Propid. Entwicklung,” 5. 250. 

3 “μεῖς μάρτυρες τούτων. Καὶ ἰδοῦ, ᾿Εγὼ ἐξαποστέλλω τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ 
Πατρός μου ἐφ᾽ tudc.—sS. Luke, xxiv. 48, 49. 

* Καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν μάρτυρες τῶν ῥημίτων τούτων καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ “Αγιον.----ὶ οἵα 


y 32. 
5 "Ἐκεῖνος μαρτυρήσει περὶ ᾿Εμοῦ" καὶ ὑμεῖς δὲ μαρτυρεῖτε.---ϑ. John, xv. 26, 27. 


LECT. VI.] SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 267 


Ghost sent down from heaven.”* The New Testament writers, 
in short, express themselves so as to convey the notion that the 
Holy Ghost anp the Disciples—in other words, the Holy Ghost 
by their agency—bore testimony to the Gospel, and made pro- 
vision for the future fortunes of the Church.’ The fact moreover, 
which all such expressions imply, affords a further illustration of 
an important characteristic of the theory which I advocate: for such 
statements disclose to us the principle, that God, when bestow- 
ing the guidance of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles, still em- 
ployed those natural’ means whereby their testimony should 
acquire the utmost credibility which uninspired human testi- 
mony could claim. Hence it is that the preaching of the Apostles 
is invariably represented, throughout the entire New Testament, 
as a testimony, and that peculiar importance is attached to the 
fact of their having been eye-witnesses of the events of Christ’s 
life. This is a point equally insisted upon in the first discourse 
after Pentecost,* and in the last revelation of the New Testa- 
ment.’ Such was the qualification required on the part of the 
successor to Judas ;° and such was the proof of his Apostleship 
to which 8. Paul himself appealed.’ Now, bearing this circum- 


115%. Peter, i. 12. Cf. also 2 Cor. iii. 8, where their ministry is termed ἡ διακονία 
τοῦ Πνεύματος. 

2? “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly (Τὸ δὲ Πνεῦμα ῥητῶς λέγει) that in the 
latter times some shall depart from the faith,” &—1 Tim. iv. 1. On these words 
Wiesinger observes: “The expression ῥητῶς, as also the whole tenor of the passage, 
teaches us that the Apostle appeals to predictions of the Spirit lying before him ;” 
and these Wiesinger considers to have been our Lord’s prophecy in 8. Matt. xxiv. 11, 
24, or §. Paul’s own words in 2 Thess. ii. 3, &c., in allusion to Dan. vii. 25; viii. 23; 
xi. 30. Of. 1 8. John, ii. 18; 2 8. Pet. iii. 3; 8. Jude, 18. Olshausen, on the other 
hand, considers that 5. Paul appeals to a prediction uttered by the prophets of that 
period,—referring in support of this view to Acts, xi. 28 (Agabus); xiii. 1, 2 (ΝΟΥ 
there were in the Church that was at Antioch certain prophets. * * * And ag 
they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Ghost said,” &c.); xx. 23 (“The 
Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying (λέγον) that bonds,” &e.); xxi. 11 (Agabus 
again prophesies: ‘‘ Thus saith the Holy Ghost,” &c).— Comm. B. v.s. 469. But why 
not adopt the simple explanation that S. Paul refers to a revelation which he had 
himself received? 

3 See supra, Lecture iv. p. 147. 

4 Οὐ πώντες ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν naptvpec.—Acts, ii. 32. Cf. ch. iii, 15; x. 39; 18. John, 
i, 1-3; 2S. Pet. i. 16-18. 

® “Who bare record (ἐμαρτύρησεν) of the Word of God, and of the testimony (τὴν 
μαρτυρίαν) of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw (ὅσα eidev).”—Rev. i. 2; see 
Lecture iv. p. 163, note 2. 

& Acts, i. 21, 22. 

7 “Am I not an Apostle, am I not free, have I not seen (ἑώρακα) Jesus Christ our 
Lord.”—1 Cor. ix. 1. Sack appears to me to transgress the limits of warrantable 
speculation in his application of this principle. Having truly observed, “dass der 
Mangel unmittelbarer Augen. und-Ohrenzeugenschatt an sich nicht von der Inspira- 
tion ausschliesst”—he goes on to say: “Auf der anderen Seite ist es auch klar, 


268 SCRIPTURAL PROOF. [LECT. σι. 


stance in mind, if we combine the words of S. Peter, ‘‘ We are 
His witnesses, and so is also the Holy Ghost,” with the suggest- 
ive statement of 8. James, by which he eke the decision of 
the Council of Jerusalem, “It seemed good to the Holy Ghost 
AND to us’”'’—our conclusion is still further strengthened. The 
words “and to us,” can never be taken to represent the Apostles 
as separated from the influence of the Spirit : and whether we 
understand the passage to mean ‘‘it seemed good to the Holy 
Ghost working zn us ;” or, rather, as signifying the employment, 
by the Spirit, of the personal agency of the Apostles, and that 
His Divine Testimony was conjoined with their human testimony, 
—we equally see the fact expressed of the harmonious combina- 
tion of the Divine and the human intelligence. The language, 
in a word, is that of men who are moved by the Divine impulse ; 
but who εὖ not lay aside their own intellectual individuality, 
which is made use of by the Supreme Intelligence, in order to 
shed a human coloring over the truths which He imparts.’ 


dass Mangel an Befahigung, das Thatsichliche zu wissen und zu schreiben, entschieden 
ausschliesst.”—Apologetik, 5. 421. 

1 *Edosev yap τῷ Πνεύματι τῷ ‘Ayiw καὶ ἡ μῖν---ὶ οἶδ, xv. 28; “which style,” 
abserves Hooker, “they did not use as matching themselves in power with the Holy 
host, but as testifying the Holy Ghost to be the Author, and themselves but only 
utterers of that decree.”—<ecl. Pol., B iii. ὁ. X., vol. i. p. 385. 

2 The unhesitating submission of the whole Christian community to this decree of 
the Council of Jerusalem—which in fact abrogated the literal signification of the 
Law,—was the clearest proof that the Church could have given of its belief in the 
inspired authority of the Apostles, and in the justice of the claim, here advanced by 
them, of combining in their decision their own conclusion with that suggested by the 
Holy Ghost. A very different interpretation has been given by Bishop. Burnet, when 
arguing that this passage affords no support to the authority claimed for General] 
Councils: “The Apostles here, receiving no inspiration to direct them in this case, but 
observing well what 8. Peter put them in mind of, concerning God's sending him by 
a special vision to preach to the Gentiles, * * * they upon this did by thew 
judgment conclude from thence, that what God had done in the particular instance of 
Cornelius was now to be extended to all the Gentiles. So by this we see that those 
words ‘seemed good to the Holy Ghost’ relate to the case of Cornelius; and those 
words ‘seemed good to us’ import that they [i. e. by their own uninspired judgment 
resolved to extend that to be a general rule to all the Gentiles."—On the XXXIX. 
Articles, Art. xxi. The acute writer seems, however, not to have observed that such 
an interpretation of the passage overturns the conclusion which he sought to build 
upon it. If the Apostles, assembled in Council at Jerusalem, had “ received no in- 
spiration to direct them,”’—an assertion which the mere nature of the question they 
were discussing proves to be wholly gratuitous; if, indeed, this were not a case per se, 
and the Apostles differed in no respect from the members of any future Council in the 
matter of immediate supernatural aid, then, assuredly, such future Councils must have 
a perfect right to claim authority equal to that of any other which was similarly 
without ‘inspiration to direct” it. Any Council at the present day may, therefore, 
according to Bishop Burnet’s hypothesis, similarly preface its decrees by the formula, 
“Tt seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us”—in whatever sense these words are 
to be taken, and may fiirly demand the same deference for its Canons, as Scripture 


LECT. VI.] SCRIPTURAL PROOF, 269 


II. The second class of passages above referred to, in which 
inspired men claim infallible authority for their own words and 
writings, may now be briet'y examined. We have just seen how the 
human testimony of the Apostles was exalted into Divine Tes- 
timony by the co-operation of the Spirit of God. The effect of 
this influence upon their minds cannot be more forcibly illustrated 
than by the confident tone in which all their statements are ad- 
vanced. No honest and merely human historian has ever dared 
to write thus. When recording the minute facts of his history, 
the greater his honesty the less willing is he to express himself 
with too great assurance. The writers of Scripture, on the other 
hand, never admit the possibility of their assertions being erro- 
neous. I need only mention the Preface to 8, Luke’s Gospel. 
Although ‘many had taken in hand” to record the facts of the 
Life of Christ, this Evangelist takes up his pen to represent them 
with ‘“ unerring accuracy.”* Modestly though the sacred penmen 
judged of themselves on other occasions, they never drop the 
slightest hint that aught which could be regarded as the effect 
of their former prejudices adheres to their teaching.? Nay, if the 
doctrine imparted by them is assailed in any of its aspects, they 
reject such opposition with the utmost energy as something per- 
verse, and wholly untenable. This feature of their writings we 
can trace in the language of 8. Paul and 8. Peter, of 8. James 
and δ. John.* 8. Paul even pronounces the most fearful male- 
diction upon all who advance doctrines contrary to his own: 
“Though an angel from heaven preach any other Gospel unto 
you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be ac- 
cursed,”* They neither intimate, as I have already shown, that 
this infallible doctrine had been derived from previous principles 
by their own reasoning powers, nor do they ever pride themselves 


implies that the Church was bound to pay to the decision of the “ uninspired” mem- 
bers of the Council of Jerusalem. 

1 ’Aogudeva.—S. Luke, i. 4. Cf. supra, Lecture ii. p. 56, note +. 

2 The argument, derived from the silence of the sacred writers on this head, be- 
comes much stronger when we remember that, as has been proved in the last Dis- 
course (see supra, p. 221, &e.), they were perfectly conscious that infallibility did not 
attach itself to their conduct on those occasions when they did not act under the imme- 
diate influence of Inspiration. 

3 Cf Col, ii; 2S. Pet. ii.; S. James, ii.; 2 85. John, 9, &c. See Steudel’s “" Zeit- 
schrift,” for 1832. H. iii. s. 13. 

4 Παρ᾽ ὃ εὐηγγελισάμεθα ὑμῖν, ἀνάθεμα éotw.—Gal. i. 8, Cf. too, the tone of com: 
mand so constantly assumed: 6. g. “Them that are 8.1.6} we command and exhort 
hy our Lord Jesus Christ,” &c.—2 Thess. iii, 12. 


270 SCRIPTURAL PROOF, [LECT. VL. 


upon their disinterested devotion to the service of the Gospel. 
They refer all to the illuminating influence of God. “Unto 
me,” writes §. Paul, “‘who am less than the least of all saints, 
is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the 
unsearchable riches of Christ.”* The obligation under which 
all men are placed of accepting with entire submission the doc- 
trines thus preached, the sacred writers infer from the fact that 
their labors had been accompanied by such miracles as attest the 
authority of an Apostle.” This authority, moreover, the New 
Testament defines as being equal to that of the Prophets: “ You 
are built,” declares ὃ. Paul, ‘‘upon the foundation of the Apos- 
{165 and Prophets ;”* and 8. Peter admonishes the Church to be 
“mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy 
Prophets, and of the commandment of us the Apostles of the 
Lord and Saviour.”* And when we bear in mind the manner in 
which the different authors of the New Testament refer to the 
Prophets, and how they declare the old Testament to have been 
“‘oiven by Inspiration of God ;” we cannot escape from the con- 
clusion that they claim for their own teaching the same Divine 
guidance which they, on all occasions, attribute to those ‘men 
of God, who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” 

It has been objected, indeed, that the promises of Christ had 
relation merely to the oral teaching of the Apostles, not to their 
written compositions.” Not to insist again upon the obvious re- 
mark already made, that if the guidance of the Holy Spirit was 
needed to direct them when teaching their contemporaries or 
pleading their cause before rulers, ὦ fortiori was similar guidance 
necessary when they were about to bequeath instruction to every 
future age ;—not to repeat, I say, such an observation, the sacred 
penmen themselves expressly claim the same authority whether 


1 Eph. iii. 8. 3. Rom. xv. 19; 2 Cor. xii, 12; Heb. ii. 4. 

3 Eph. ii. 20. The Apostles, observes 8. Chrysostom on this passage, are placed 
first in order, although last in point of time: S. Paul hereby declaring—ér. θεμέλιός 
εἰσι καὶ οὗτοι καὶ ἐκεῖνοι, Kai μία οἰκοδομὴ τὸ πᾶν, καὶ ῥίζα wio.—Homil. vi. in Ep. ad 
Eph., t. xi. p. 39. 

ΟΝ ΒΡ itty ἢ. (OB Sb 66: 17.1.8: 

5 Mr. Morell seems to consider—no doubt consistently with his general views— 
that neitLer the oral ror the written teaching of the Apostles can be regarded as ine 
spired: ‘“ We cannot infer that they [the Books of the New Testament] are verbally 
inspired, any more than were the oral teachings of the Apostles. We cannot infer 
that they had any greater authority attached to them than the general authority 
which was attached to the apostolic office.’"—Philosophy of Religion, p. 182. See 
supra, Lecture iv. p. 148, note 3, 


LECT. VI.| SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 271 


they refer to their written or to their oral teaching. 8. John de- 
clares of his Gospel, “‘ These are written, that ye might believe 
that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God ; and that, believing, 
ye might have life through His name.” §, Paul admonishes the 
Thessalonians to “stand fast, and hold the traditions which they 
had been taught, whether by word, or owr Epistle.” Nor are we 
to imagine that the influence of the Holy Spirit extended merely 
to the contents of the Apostles’ writings, suggesting the doctrines 
which they were to teach, and the facts which they were to re- 
cord :—we find the same Divine guidance claimed for the lan- 
guage also which they employ.* The passage selected as the text 
of this Discourse of itself establishes this fact : ‘‘ Which things 
we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but 
which the Holy Ghost teacheth.”* And to the same effect, 8. 
Paul again thanks God that the Thessalonians received the word 
of God which they had heard from him, “not as the word of 
men, but as it is in truth, the word of God.’”* 


! Taira δὲ yéyparrau.—S. John, xx. 31. 

3 Εἴτε διὰ λόγου εἴτε du ἐπιστολῆς 7udv.—2 Thess. ii. 15. 

3. Dr. Henderson urges the following curious objection against views of this na 
ture: ‘‘A fourth argument against the notion of an entirely literal inspiration of the 
sacred Scriptures, is its tendency to sink the authority of faithful translations, by de- 
priving them of all elaim to that quality." —Divine Inspiration, p. 433. 3 

41 Cor. ii. 13. “A καὶ λαλοῦμεν οὐκ. ἐν διδακτοῖς ἀνθρωπίνης σοφίας λόγοις ἀλλ᾽ ἐν 
διδακτοῖς Πνεύματος. If any objective truth is to be ascribed to these words, we can 
entertain but one opinion as to the source and character of the language of Scripture. 

5.1 Thess. ii. 13. In the neglect of this great truth—viz., that the genuine idea 
of ‘the word of God” is not only to be found in the Bible, but that it is the very 
condition of its existence as Holy Scripture,—consists the grand defect of many mod- 
ern theories on the subject of Inspiration. That Scripture is “the word of God” to 
man, conveyed, it is true, at different periods, and with different degrees of clear- 
ness—but ever acomplishing the end for which it was designed——was the foundation 
of the creed of the early Church. Hence the language of the inspired writers has 
been profoundly termed by Origen, ἐργατικὸν ῥῆμα. To this effect he observes: τι 
χρὴ νοεῖν περὶ TOV προφητῶν, ἢ ὅτι πᾶν ῥῆμα λαληθὲν διὰ στόματος αὐτῶν ἐργατικὸν 
ἦν ; καὶ οὐ θαυμαστὸν εἰ πᾶν ῥῆμα τὸ λαλούμενον ὑπὸ τῶν προφητῶν εἰργάζετο ἔργον 
τὸ πρέπον ῥήματι. ἀλλὰ γὰρ οἶμαι ὅτι καὶ πᾶν θαυμάσιον γράμμα, τὸ γεγραμμένον ἐν 
τοῖς λογίοις τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐργάζεται. καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἰῶτα ἕν, ἢ μία κεραΐα γεγραμμένη ἐν τῇ 
γραφῇ, ἥτις τοῖς ἐπισταμένοις χρῆσθαι τῇ δυνάμει τῶν γραμμάτων, οὐκ ἐργάζεται τὸ 
ἑαυτῆς épyov.—Homil. xxxix. in Jerem., t. iii. p. 286. Cf. Rudelbach, “Die Lehre 
von der Insp.” 1840. H.is. 7. ‘' The only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom 
of the Father, He hath revealed Him.’ It isasa Personal Being, therefore, commu- 
nicating with us through those functions of soul and body, which He has vouchsafed 
to share with ourselves, that the Eternal Word discovers Himself. But so far as the 
knowledge which He communicates is clothed in earthly words, it is as capable of 
being conveyed to those to whom it comes in books, as it was to those to whom it 
addressed itself through their hearing. Therefore were men who ‘had perfect under- 
standing of all things from the very first’ moved ‘to write in order,’ that subsequent 
generations might ‘know the certainty of those things wherein’ they had ‘ been in- 
structel’ Thus did it please Him, who made Himself visible only to the men of 


272 SCRIPTURAL PROOF. [LECT. ΤΊ. 


I cannot close this branch of the subject without adverting 
to the objection usually urged against all arguments such as 1 
have just advanced. If, indeed, the nature of those arguments 
be kept in view—founded as they are upon the whole tenor of 
Scripture, and the express statements of the sacred writers—it 
must surely appear antecedently improbable in the highest de- 
gree, that any difficulty, suggested by the language of the inspired 
penmen themselves, can be either real or valid. The objection, 
however, to which I allude is founded upon a passage in the New 
Testamant ; and it furnishes the ordinary burden of all popular 
reasoning against any strict view of Inspiration.’ In the seventh 
chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, 8. Paul writes at 
the tenth verse : “ Unto the married I command, yet not I, but 
the Lord’*—words in which he obviously places his own injunc- 
tion on a perfect equality with that “of the Lord,” and which, 
therefore, merely supply another proof of his inspired authority 
in addition to the kindred passages already considered. So far, 
it is plain, no objection arises. But the Apostle, continuing his 
subject, shortly afterwards adds, ‘‘' To the rest speak I, not the 
Lord ;” observing further, with reference to a third class, “ I have 
no commandment of the Lord, yet I give my judgment :’”*—by 
which language he is supposed to intimate that, in certain parts 


one generation, to ‘pour out doctrine as prophecy, and leave it to all ages for ever.’ ” 
—Wilberforce, On the Incarnation, p. 476. 

1 Thus Perrone writes, in continuation of the passage already cited (p. 239, 
note '): “‘Quamvis porro videantur apostoli privilegium de quo est sermo sibi tribuere, 
alibi tamen, si insistas literze, videntur sibi denegare, ut 1 Cor. vii. 12, 40; xiv. 37, 
38 (?), quee reipsa loca, una cum pluribus aliis, nobis objiciuntur a rationalistis ad ex- 
cludendam divinorum Bibliorum inspirationem.” See also Spinoza, “ Tract. Theol. 
Polit., cap. xi. 

2 Tt must be carefully noted here, that the difficulty which this chapter has sug- 
gested to many, does not commence at ver. 6 (‘‘I speak this by permission, and not 
of commandment—roiro δὲ λέγω κατὰ συγγνώμην, od Kar’ émitaynv.”), as the am- 
biguity of the English word “permission” by which συγγνώμη is rendered, might 
lead us at first to suppose:—but where συγγνώμη, which does not occur elsewhere 
in the New Testament, can only mean, (1) forgiveness ; (2) indulgence. As Olshausen 
observes, συγγνώμη differs from γνώμη (ver. 25) only so far as the “judgment” of 
the Apostle comprises the additional notion of @ concession ; cf. Vulg., “ Secundum 
indulgentiam.” The meaning, then, of ver. 6 is, ‘But this I say by way of allow- 
ance (for you), not by way of command,”—“ this” (τοῦτο) referring to the whole re- 
commendation given in ver. 5; or, perhaps, as Olshausen thinks, to the preceding 
verses also. This is proved beyond a question by ver. 7—“ For I would that all 
men were even as I myself,” ὅθ. The recommendation, therefore. of ver. 5 is given 
not “as acommand in all cases, but as an allowance to those to #hom he [S. Paul] 
was writing, whom he knew and assumes to be thus tempted.”—Alford, in loc. The 
difficulty first arises at the passage commencing with ver. 10. 

° Verses 12 and 25 


LECT, VI.] SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 273 


of Scripture, the author may write according to his own unin- 
spired human judgment, although guided in other portions of 
his work by the Holy Ghost.’ Such an inference, however, is al- 
together at variance with ὃ. Paul’s design, whose words in this 
place can only be distorted into the form of an argument against 
Inspiration by utterly overlooking his object and his meaning. 
The first of the three expressions which have been quoted, “ } 
command, yet not I, but the Lord,” obviously refers to the re- 
institution by Christ (as 8. Mark has recorded the circumstance) 
of the original Law of Marriage, and relates to an ordinance re- 
vealed from the very first, and obligatory on every occasion, and 
in every age ; while by the two latter passages‘'—on which the 


! This oyinion is sometimes held by persons who love and reverence the Bible, 
but who conceive that they are required, by the Apostle’s language here, to relax 
their views as to Inspiration. Such persons are surely not aware of the extent of 
their admission; and in order to show what this opinion really amounts to, I would 
refer to the unanswerable remark of a writer who denies altogether the authority 
and truth of Scripture, and which I have already quoted in connexion with a sim- 
ilar admission as to the fallibility of the Apostles:—see the words of Mr. Greg, 
quoted in Lecture iv. at the close of the note, p. 180. 

3. Tn this place (ver. 10) S. Paul “is about togive them a command, resting, not 
merely on inspired Apostolic authority, great and undoubted as that was, but on that 
of 18% LorD HIMszELF, so that all supposed distinction between the Apostle’s own 
writing of himself, and of the Lord, is quite irrelevant.”—Alford, in loc. The Lord’s 
command, to which the Apostle refers, had been already given (‘ And if a woman 
shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery,” 
S. Mark, x. 12—in which place only is the woman’s part brought out). 

3 In ver. 12 (‘But to the rest speak I, not the Lord”—Toic¢ δὲ λοιποῖς λέγω ἐγώ, 
οὐχ ὁ Κύριος) S. Paul for the first time states the result of his own inspired judgment: 
“T” i.e. “I, Paul, in my own apostolic office, under the authority of the Holy 
Spirit—‘ not the Lord,’ i. 6. not Christ, by any direct command spoken by Him; it 
was a question with which Christ did not deal, in His recorded discourses.” Again, 
in ver. 25, (“ Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord—érirayjv 
Κυρίου οὐκ tya—yet I give my judgment (γνώμην), as one that hath obtained mercy 
of the Lord to be faithful—i7d Κυρίον πιστὸς εἶναι. there is no contrast between ὁ 
Κύριος and ἐγώ ; the emphasis is on éxutaynv— ‘command of the Lord have I none,’ 
i. 6. no express:d precept.” See Mr. Alford’s judicious summary. In ver. 25, πιστὸς 
εἶναι can only mean, says Olshausen: ‘be worthy of belief, i. 6. of confidence. To 
this there is a reference altogether peculiar, in the mention of his γνώη. He was, 
however, worthy of confidence because he had the Spirit of God, which determines 
all relations correctly, a fact referred to in ver. 40.”—#n loc. B. iv. 8, 615. In a word, 
5. Paul does not distinguish between his own commands, and those received by an 
immediate revelation from Christ, but between his own commands, and those which 
Christ had given when on earth, and which were now historical. To such injunctions 
of the Lord, S. Paul more than once refers in this Epistle. Alluding to the provision 
of Christ for the ministers of the Gospel (S. Matt. x. 10), he writes: “Even so hath 
the Lord ordained (*étagev)”—ix. 14; and again: ‘‘I praise you brethren, that you 
keep the ordinances (zapadoce.c—traditions, as the margin renders) as I delivered 
(παρέδωκα) them to you”—xi. 2: ef. ver. 23. 

Even rationalistic commentators have been compelled to arrive at this conclusion. 
Thus De Wette observes: ‘“‘ Hitherto the Apostle has spoken from his own judgment 
ilwminated by the Holy Ghost (v. 40); so also in what follows (vv. 12, 25, 40); but 
here (v. 10) he appeals to an expression of the Lord (Mark, x. 12). The distinction 


274 SCRIPTURAL PROOF. [LECT. VL 


arguinent against Inspiration rests—S. Paul, as the context 
clearly proves, merely intends to convey, that Christ had not 
directly provided for those particular cases in which His Apostle 
now pronounces his inspired and authoritative opinion. 

In the former of these passages, the very nature of the ques- 
tion respecting which the Apostle issues his directions, namely, 
“Tf any brother hath a wife that believeth not,”—an exceptional 
case which arose from the state of society then existing, and 
which could not be of frequent recurrence in after times,—of it- 
self explains why our Lord had not Himself promulgated an ex- 
press law respecting it. Here, as in other matters of discipline, 
the Holy Ghost was to guide the Apostles into “‘all the truth ;” 
and the decisions at which they arrived are therefore equally 
binding with those of Christ Himself, in every case to which 
those decisions can apply. This, indeed, is clear from S. Paul’s 
own words when summing up the question: “So ordain 1 in all 
charches.”* And accordingly he is so far from representing his 
“judgment,” delivered in the various aspects of the temporary 
exigency which he discusses in this chapter, as a mere human 
and fallible opinion, that he closes his remarks by the apparently 
uncalled-for assertion, ““I think also that I have the Spirit of 
God.” 


is not that which subsists between human and Divine Truth, but between immediato 
revelation and that which has been appropriated and recalled to mind by the assist- 
ance of the Spirit—since the Spirit takes from Christ that which He teaches (John, 
xvi. 14): thus can even the commands of the Apostle be regarded as the commands 
of Christ {x:v. 37).” And Meyer writes with reference to the contrast between ἐγώ 
and ὁ Κύριος (ver. 10): ‘“ As to his ἐγώ, the Apostle was conscious that his individu- 
ality was under the influence of the Holy Ghost.—ver. 40. He therefore distinguishes 
here and vy. 12, 25 not between his own and inspired commands, but between those 
which proceeded from his own inspired (theopneusten) subjectivity, and those which 
Christ Himself maintained by His objective word.” 

* Ver. 11—ei μὴ ἑκάστῳ ὡς ἐμέρισεν ὁ Κύριος, ἕκαστον ὡς κέκληκεν ὁ Θεός, οὕτως 
περιπατείτω καὶ οὕτως ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις πάσαις διατάσσομαι :—where διατάσσομαι in 
the middle has the force of ““ἴο make a decree.” Mr. Alford thus accurately points 
out the connexion with the previous verses: “εἰ μή takes an exception, by way of 
caution, to the foregoing motive for not remaining together (ver. 16). The Christian 
partner might carry that motive too far, and be tempted by it to break the connexion 
on his own part: a course already prohibited (vv. 12-14). Therefore the Apostle adds, 
‘But (i. e. only be careful not to make this a ground for yourselves causing the separa- 
tion) as to each (ἑκάστῳ ὡς ὡς éxdor.) the Lord has distributed his lot, as (i.e. ἡ κλήσει, 
ver. 20) God has called each, so (in that state, without change) let him walk.’ And 
ΒΟ ordain I,” &c. 

? Ver. 40—doxd δὲ κἀγὼ Πνεῦμα Θεοῦ ἔχειν. Observe, too, that in ch. ii. 16, S. Paul 
similarly declares: ‘“‘ But we have the mind of Christ.” As might be expected, ob- 
jectors urge the use of δοκῶ, in this verse, as a proof that the Apostle felt no cer- 
tainty as to his having spoken under the guidance of the Spirit: in which sense, also, 
Baur considers the words, ‘‘ When James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars 


LECT. VI.] SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 275 


If we turn, in the next place, to the other passage on which 
the objector relies,—‘‘ Now concerning virgins I have no com- 
mandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that 
hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful”—we again per- 
ceive an allusion to the fact that Christ, when laying down His 
commands, had made no provision for this special exigency. Un- 
der such circumstances, therefore, an exercise of apostolic author- 
ity was again required : and consequently 8. Paul proceeds here 
also to pronounce his “ judgment,” introducing his decision with 
the words: ‘I suppose (or rather consider), therefore, that this 
is good for the present distress.” 

On the whole, then, we observe that three questions are here 
discussed by the Apostle. The first relates to the Law of Mar- 
riage, where both husband and wife were believers: and in this 
instance, having pointed out that it had been decided once for all 
by Christ, 8. Paul contents himself with simply repeating that 
decision. ‘The second question has also reference to the marriage 
state, in cases where one of the parties had not as yet embraced 
the Christian faith ; the third, on the other hand, being “‘con- 
cerning virgins :” and in these latter questions it is expressly 
pointed out, although the rules laid down did not directly pro- 


(οἱ δοκοῦντες στῦλοι eivac)”—Gal. ii. 9, to import “zweideutige ironische Seitenblicke” 
of S. Paul against the Twelve. Ebrard (“ Krit. der evang. Gesch.,” s. 702) justly ob- 
serves that any Lexicon might have taught him that οἱ δοκοῦντες means ‘those who 
are held in repute (by others),’ not ‘those who would fain be so esteemed.’ For the 
classical usage, cf “οἱ δοκοῦντες eli'ai τι, men who are held to be something, men of 
repute, Plat. Gorg. 472. A; so οἱ δοκοῦντες alone, Kur. Hec. 295.”—Lidd. and Scott. 
As to the usage of doxéw by the Greek Fathers, one of the greatest of patristic scho- 
lars observes: ‘ Alia vox est, in qua item Latine transferenda non pauci interpretes 
labuntur, scil. δοκεῖν, vidert ; δοκεῖ. videtur: quod verbum vulgo usurpatur ad minu- 
endam adfirmationem; ita ut si, verbi causa, de quopiam dicatur δοκεῖ εἶναι σοφός, 
videtur esse sapiens, id ut asseveranter dictum non habeatur, sed dubitationem quam- 
dam preeferat. Verum frequentissime apud scriptores bene multos δοκεῖ nihil minuit 
adjfirmationem; ut e. g. in his Commentariis, ad Ps. exviii. p. 729, de Deo dicitur 
δικαιότατος εἷναι δοκεῖ, ubi vertendum sine dubio, justissimus est. Innumera proferri 
possunt cum ex Eusebio, tum ex aliis Scriptoribus exempla, Sic apud Athanasium, 
iva Toivuy καὶ wv ἐπιθυμεῖς τετυχηκέναι δοκοίη ς, ut igitur optata consequaris.”— 
Montfaucon, Preelim. in Huseb. Comm. in Psal., c. x. 2. Such a sense is frequent in 
the New Testament. Εἰ, g. “I think (δοκῶ) that God hath set forth us the Apostles,” 
&e.—1 Cor. iv. 9. Cf “From him that hath not, even that he hath (ὃ ἔχει) shall be 
taken away from him”—S, Luke, xix. 26 (see S. Matt. xiii. 12), with the parallel 
words, in the same Gospel, ‘‘even that which he seemeth to have” (ὃ δοκεὶ éyerv)— 
viii. 18. So, also, 1 Cor. xi. 16; Heb. iv. i. 

In considering the passage before us we are also to remember that the Apostle 
was writing to men who would gladly have shaken off his authority, and who con- 
tinually sought “a proof of Christ speaking in him” (2 Cor. xiii. 3); to whom, more= 
aver, in ch. xii. he adduced the two great proofs of his being God’s agent—viz., the 
working of miracles, and the receiving of revelations. 


276 SCRIPTURAL PROOF. [LECT. VI. 


ceed from Christ, yet that they are prescribed by one who “ had 
the Spirit of God.” And not only do we thus see how untenable 
is this objection which has been founded upon the Apostle’s 
language, but we can also point out the fallacy on which it de- 
pends. The objection, in fact, is based upon the assumption— 
equally opposed to the context, and to the whole tenor of those 
numerous passages of Scripture considered in this Discourse— 
that the phrase “the commandment of the Lord”’ signifies the 
inward suggestion of the Holy Ghost by which the Apostles were 
guided and prompted in the discharge of their labors. By point- 
ing out the injunction ft Christ to which alone that phrase makes 
allusion, commentators have proved, that such cannot be the 
meaning of §. Paul’s words; and in doing so they have also 
proved that nothing could have been further from the Apostle’s 
design than to institute any contrast unfavorable to his own in- 
spired authority. So far, indeed, was he from intending to con- 
vey by them the idea that any of his inspired directions to the 
Church was to be looked upon as of less authority than even 
those of Christ Himself—that in this same Epistle,’ having re- 


1 Mr. Westcott is certainly in error when he says: ‘The reality of an objective In- 
spiration * * * seems to be implied in the Pauline formula κατ᾽ ἐπιταγήν (Rom. 
xvi. 26; 1 Tim. 1.1; Titus, i.3; 1 Cor. vii. 6, 25; 2 Cor. viii. 8).".—Zlem. of Gosp. 
Harm., p. 11. The import of ἐπιταγῆ in 1 Cor. vii. 6, has been pointed out p. 272, 
note *; and in 2 Cor. viii. 8, its meaning is clearly the same. In neither case is there 
the slightest allusion to a Divine command. The other texts referred to by Mr 
Westcott have clearly nothing to do with the inspiration of Scripture. In the same 
general sense ἐπιταγή is used in Titus, ii, 15, and it is not found again in the New 
Testament. 

2 1 Cor. xiv. 37. Olshausen sums up the question as follows: ‘We find (ch, 
vii. 10, 12, 25, 40) that the Apostle distinguishes between what he says, and what 
the Lord says; between a definite command of Christ (ἐπεταγή), and his own subjective 
judgment (γνώμη). * * * Suppose, therefore, that Paul had no traditional com- 
mand of Christ upon a certain subject, yet we must esteem his inspired conviction 
equivalent to such a command, for Christ wrought it in him by His Holy Spirit! In 
ch, xiv. 37, he openly lays claim to this privilege. It is there said: εἴ τις δοκεὶ 
προφήτης εἶναι ἢ πνευματικὸς, ἐπιγινωσκέτω ἃ γράφω ὑμῖν, ὅτι Κυρίου εἰσὶν ἐντολαΐ [or, 
adopting the reading which criticism has established, “the things which I write unto 
you proceed from the Lord (Κυρίου ἐστίν). Here no traditional commands of Christ 
can be intended,—for in order to know such commands one need not be a prophet; 
but the expressions of Paul are so far called Christ’s commands, inasmuch as He 
wrought them in him by His Spirit.”—loc. cit., s. 600. 

There are two other passages in the writings of 8. Paul which have been some- 
times considered to imply that the great Apostle did not always write under the 
guidance of Inspiration. (1.) “ Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants 
(ἐδουλώθητε) of righteousness. I speak after the manner of men (ἀνθρώπινον λέγω) 
because of the infirmity of your flesh.”—Rom. vi. 18, 19. This passage is well ex- 
plained by Mr. Alford: ‘For the expression ἐδουλώθητε the Apostle apologises: ‘it 
is not literally so; the servant of righteousness is no slave, under no yoke of bondage ; 
but in order to set the contrast between the former and the new state better before 


LECT. VI.] SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 277 


ferred at considerable length to the existence of special miraculous 
gifts in the Church (of which a prominent gift was the faculty 
of “discerning of spirits”), he appeals to persons thus endowed 
in the remarkable words: “If any man think himself to be a 
prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that 1 
write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.” 


you, I have used this word: ‘I speak as a man (according to the requirements of 
rhetorical antithesis) on account, of the (intellectual) weakness of your flesh,’ * * * 
and want such figures to set the truth before you.” On such words, therefore, no 
argument against Inspiration can be founded. 

(2.) The next passage is as follows. “I say again, let no man think me a fooi 
(ἄφρονα): if otherwise (εἰ δὲ μή ye) yet asa fool receive me, that I may boast myself a 
little. That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord (ὃ λαλῶ, οὐ κατὰ Κύριον λαλῶ), 
but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting."——2 Cor. xi. 16, 17. Here, 
however, Mr. Alford says: “Proceeding on the ὡς ἄφρονα he disclaims for this self- 
boasting the character of inspiration—or of being said in pursuance of his mission 
from the Lord.” But there is no question here of the Apostle’s “mission.” The 
‘false Apostles” (ver..13) had compelled him to enter upon the subject of his privi- 
leges; S. Paul, therefore, considers it prudent, in order to guard against a possible 
perversion of his words, to point out that the apparent boasting or self-glory to which 
he is thus compelled is not in itse/f to be approved, or, as a general rule, in accordance 
with the Lord’s will. He accordingly uses the words, “not after the Li rd” (ver. 17), 
in strong contrast to the expression ‘‘after the flesh (κατὰ τὴν σάρκα)" inve..1° His 
meaning, therefore, is—‘ Since many glory after the flesh, I will glory also:—bat, in 
so doing, I am compelled to adopt a course of which, as a general rule, I cannot ap- 
prove; self-boasting is not after the Lord; and this I forewarn you of as I do all 
things, dearly beloved, for your edifying (ch. xii, 19).” “In ver. 16 the Apostle plays 
on the idea implied by ἄφρων. At first, he requests them not to regard him as such, 
because he boasts himself (want of understanding is charged against those who really 
do so out of self-conceit); but if they would not obey him in this instance (εἰ δὲ μή y €), 
yet they might, if they pleased, look upon him even as ἄφρων---88 those vaunting in- 
dividuals—pro7vided he may pride himself even in a small degree. In these last 
words, together with a refined irony, is contained a censure of the Corinthians, that 
they permitted those false prophets so to exalt themselves. In ver. 17 the ὡς ἐν 
ἀφροσύνῃ shows that the Apostle does not mean to say that he really speaks with a 
want of understanding, but that his speech has merely a semblance of it.”—Olshausen, 
Comm. B. iii. 5. 867. Indeed 8S. Paul expressly declares that it is in this sense only 
that the charge of “folly” can be brought against him: ‘‘ For though I would desire 
to glory, J shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth: but now I forbear.”— 
xii. 6. 

The passages, “ΒΥ the grace of God I am what I am: I labored more abundantly 
than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was in me”—1 Cor. xv. 10; and 
again, “God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ” 
(Gal. vi. 14), convey the principle against any violation of which S. Paul desires to 
guard; and hence we can explain his reiteration of the charge of “ folly” against 
himself in that assertion of his privileges to which he next proceeds, viz., ver. 21, 
23; and especially, ch. xii. 11, “I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled 
me:” cf, also xi. 30; xii. 1-6. 





LECTURE VII. 


THE COMMISSION TO WRITE.—THE FORM UF 
WHAT WAS WRITTEN. 


Διέπερ τοῖς πειθομένοις μὴ ἀνθρώπων εἶναι συγγράμματα τὰς ἱερὰς βίβλους, ἀλλ᾽ κέ 
ἐπιπνοίας τοῦ ᾿Αγίου Πνεύματος βουλήματι τοῦ ἸΙατρὸς τῶν ὅλων dia’ Inood Χριστοῦ 
ταύτας ἀναγεγράφθαι καὶ εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐληλυθέναι, τὰς φαινομένας ὁδοὺς ὑποδεικτέον 

ORIGENES, De Princip., lib. τν. ix. 


“Duo vero Cherubim pennis suis obumbrant Propitiatorium, id est honorant ve- 
lando; quoniam mysteria ista ibi sunt: et invicem se adtendunt, quia consonant; duo 
quippe ibi Testamenta figurantur: et vultus eorum sunt in Propitiatorium, quia miseri- 
cordiam Dei, in qua una spes est, valde commendant.” 

S. AUGUSTIN., Quest. in Hxodwm, lib. π. qu. cv. 


“¢Vox in excelso audita est lamentationis, fletus et luctus, Rachel plorantis filios 
suos.’ Nec juxta Hebraicum, nec juxta Septuaginta, Matthzeus sumsit testimonium 
* * * Ex quo perspicuum est, Evangelistas et Apostolos nequaquam ex Hebreo 
interpretationem alicujus sequutos; sed quasi Hebraeos ex Hebreis, quod legebant 
Hebraice, suis sermonibus expressisse.” 

S. Hizron., Comm. in Jerem., lib. VL 


Τὴν θείαν αἰτιῶνται γραφὴν, μὴ TH περιττῷ καὶ κεκαλλωπισμένῳ χρωμένην λόγῳ, 


ἀλλὰ τῷ ταπεινῷ καὶ πεζῷ. 
S. Istpor. Pelus., Hpist. lib. tv. Lxvii. 


Οἱ θεσπέσιοι καὶ ὡς ἀληθῶς θεοπρεπεῖς, φημι δὲ τοῦ Χριστοῦ τοὺς Αποστόλους, ἀρετῇ 
πάσῃ τὰς ψυχὰς κεκοσμημένοι, τὴν δὲ γλῶτταν ἰδιωτεύοντες, τῇ γε μὴν πρὸς τοῦ Σωτῆ- 
οος αὐτοῖς δεδωρημένῃ θείᾳ καὶ παραδοξοποιῷ δυνάμει θαρσοῦντες, τὸ μὲν ἐν περινοίᾳ καὶ 
τέχνφ λόγων τὰ τοῦ Διδασκάλου μαθήματα πρεσβεύειν, οὔτε ἤδεσαν οὔτε ἐνεχείρουν. 

Evsesius Pamph., Hecl. Hist,, lib. πι. xxiv. 


LECTURE VII. 


THE COMMISSION TO WRITE—THE FORM OF 
WHAT WAS WRITTEN. 


YEA, THEY MADE THEIR HEARTS AS AN ADAMANT STONE, LEST THEY SHOULD HEAR 
THE LAW, AND THE WORDS WHICH THE LORD OF HOSTS HATH SENT IN HIS SPIRIT 
BY THE FORMER PROPHETS.—Zechariah, vii. 12. 


Havine examined those statements of the New Testament 
which, in express terms, ascribe Inspiration to our sacred books 
taken collectively, or from which the influence of the Holy Ghost 
upon their authors may be inferred,—it still remains for us to 
inquire whether the Old Testament, either by its own intimations 
confirms, or by the manner in which its language is made use of 
in the New, tends to support, the views hitherto maintained as 
to the co-operation of the Divine Spirit in the composition of 
the Bible. To the consideration of these questions the present 
Discourse must be chiefly devoted. 

The words of the text form a portion of an immediate revela- 
tion from God ; the passage from which they are taken opening 
with the customary formula, ‘“‘ The word of the Lord came unto 
Zechariah, saying, Thus speaketh the Lord of Hosts.” In this 
prophetic announcement two important facts are implied. It is 
implied, in the first place, that a collection of sacred writings was 
already in existence when Zechariah received this communication, 
—for not only “the Law,” but also “ the words which the Lord 
of Hosts hath sent by the former prophets,” are expressly referred 
to: and secondly, that those writings had been composed under 
Divine guidance,—for, with respect to the words of the prophets, 
Jehovah declares that He had sent them by “ His Spirit ;” while 
the Law, strictly so called, is on all occasions represented in 
Scripture as the voice of God Himself. We meet with state- 
ments of a similar character in other portions of the Bible which 


282 THE COMMISSION TO WRITE, [LECT, Vn. 


were written at this same period ;—statements which possess the 
greater importance from the fact that they proceeded from those 
men to whom both Jewish tradition, and the most advanced 
criticism of modern times, unite in ascribing the formation of the 
Old Testament Canon: I mean Ezra and Nehemiah.’ 


’ This fact is conclusively established by Havernick, “ Hinleitung,” Th. 1. Abth. 1- 
s. 27 ff ‘All reasons,” he observes, “if correctly estimated, lead us to the time of 
Ezra and Nehemiah, as that which can alone accord with the closing of the Canon :”"— 
e. g. the circumstances of Jewish history (see infra, p. 284); the reverential allusions 
for the first time to the Canon, taken collectively as a sacred document, in the pe- 
riod which followed Ezra and Nehemiah (see supra, Lecture ii. p. 61, &c.); the refusal 
to receive as canonical such a work as the book of Eccelesiasticus, of which the claims 
to authority are so prominently advanced (see supra, p ὅδ, note *); the testimony of 
Josephus to the failure of a “succession of prophets” (see supra, Ὁ. 68) &c. Héavernick 
appeals, in the next place, to the Tradition of the Jews, the importance of which he 
justly insists upon. This Tradition expressly refers the collection of the sacred books 
to Ezra, and “the Great Synagogue.” (1.) One of the oldest parts of the Talmud, 
the “Capita Patrum,” or “Sayings of the Fathers” (max "p75—see Mischna, ed 
Surenhus. iv. p. 409), begins with the words: ‘‘ Moses received the Law from Sinai, 
and transferred it to Joshua; Joshua to the Elders; the Elders to the Prophets; the 
Prophets to the men of the Great Synagogue,” which consisted of one hundred and 
twenty Elders in the time of Ezra; among whom were Zerubbabel, Seraiah, tha 
prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, &c.: see Surenhusius, 2bid. (2.) The im 
portant passage in the Gemara of Babylon (Tr. Baba Bathra, fol. xv. col. 1), declares 
that “the Wise Men” “have left to us the Thorah, the Prophets, and the Kethubim, 
collected into one whole (18D ΡΞ 2).  ‘‘ Who,” asks the Talmudists, ‘‘has inserted 
these books in the Canon (j2m> 725)?” in which phrase, as Havernick proves conclu 
sively—and here he follows Vitringa (“In lib. Isai.” t. i. p. 13) and Gesenius (‘‘ Der 
Proph. Jesaiah,” i. s. 16), in opposition to De Wette (‘‘Hinleit.” § 14, 5. 17) and 
Hengstenberg (“ Beitrage,” i s. 2),—=n> can only mean “inserted” (i. 6. in the Canon) 
or “edited.” Thus 3n> is employed in this passage to express that “‘ Hezekiah and 
his College wrote out (or formed into one collection) Isaiah, Proverbs, Canticles, and 
Ecclesiastes,”—clearly referring to the statement of Scripture itself: ‘‘ These are the 
Proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah King of Judah copied out.”—Prov. 
xxv. 1. It surely cannot be imagined that the Talmudists regarded “ Hezekiah and 
his College” as the authors of the Book of Proverbs! This extract from the Gemara 
ends by ascribing to Ezra the book which bears his name, and the genealogies in the 
books of Chronicles; the completion of the Chronicles it ascribes to Nehemiah, 
“ Jewish Tradition, therefore,” concludes Havernick, “concurs with historical, posi- 
tive testimony in proving that Ezra, in connexion with other famous men of his time, 
completed the collection of the Sacred Writings.”—loc. cit. s. 49. To his labors in 
arranging the Canon is clearly to be referred the origin of Ezra’s titlk—‘ A Seribe of 
the words of the commandments of the Lord and of His statutes to Israel;” “A 
Scribe of the Law of the God of Heaven.”—Kzra, vii. 11, 12; on which passages, 
taken in connexion with the Jewish Tradition already considered, was founded the 
opinion of the primitive Church. Thus §. Irenzus writes: [Θεὸς] ἐνέπνευσεν "Eodpa 
τῷ ‘lepet * * * τοὺς τῶν προγεγονότων προφητῶν πάντας ἀνατάξασθαι 
λόγους, καὶ ἀποκαταστῆσαι τῷ λαῷ τὴν διὰ Μωσέως νομοθεσίαν .----Οογηέγ. Heer, iii. 21, 
p. 216; words which have been erroneously understood to imply that S. Irenzeus 
adopted the modern fiction (2 Esdras, xiv. 21) that Ezra “compaesed anew” all the 
books of the Old Testament which had perished during the Exile. Thus the old 
Latin version renders ἀνατάξασθαι by rememorare; and Valesius (Euseb. H. ¥., lib. 
v. c. 8, p. 222) by “‘denuo componeret.” D. Massuet (én loc.) justly observes “ Ver- 
terem ego, digerere ;” giving to dvaraé. its legitimate meaning. To the same effect 
Feuardentius (én loc.) quotes Tertullian: “Ἢ Hierosolymis Babylonia expugnatione de 
letis, omne instrumentum Judaice literaturze per Esdram constat restawratum.”— 
cultu mulier., ¢. iii. p. 171. Cf. Clemens AL, “ Strom.,” i. 22, p. 410. 


LECT. VII.] THE FORM OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN. 283 


When God again committed to Moses upon Sinai the Law 
engraved on the two Tables of stone, it had been expressly com- 
manded that the Israelites should not intermarry with the inhab- 
itants of the land.’ Ezra, when recording how this law had 
been broken, observes: ‘‘ Then were assembled unto me every 
one that trembled at the words of the God of Israel.”’ This, 
however, as I have just remarked, was but the formal creed of 
his nation as to the Pentateuch. But Ezra proceeds, in his 
prayer, to combine the commands of God by His prophets with 
those which had been enunciated by the Jewish lawgiver : “‘ And 
now, O our God, what shall we say after this ? for we have for- 
saken Thy commandments which Thou hast commanded by Thy 
servants the prophets,’*—this latter phrase, as we learn from 
other writers of the Old Testament, embracing the entire body 
of God’s inspired messengers. For example, the Lord declares 
by the mouth of Jeremiah: “Since the day that your fathers 
came forth out of the land of Egypt unto this day, I have ever 
sent unto you all My servants the prophets,” 

The Divine character of the Old Testament is expressed witk 
equal distinctness by Nehemiah. He tells us how Ezra complied 
with the desire of the people that he should read before them 
“the Book of the Law of Moses which the Lord had commanded 
to Israel.”* And again, in the prayer of the Levites (which is 
followed by the covenant which Nehemiah, and the Levites, and 
people, “sealed” “to walk in God’s Law which was given by 
Moses the servant of God”), it is said: “‘ Yet many years didst 
Thou forbear them, and testifiedst against them by Thy Spirit 
in Thy prophets ;”*°—expressions which, like those of Ezra, ex- 
actly correspond to the statement of our text. 

' Exod, xxxiv. 16; οἵ Deut. vii. 3. 3. Ezra, ix. 14. 


3 [bid. ver. 10, 11. 

* Jer. vii. 25; xxv. 4; cf. 2 Kings, xvii. 6-23; 2 Chron. xxxvi. 14-16. 

° Neh. viii. 1. 

° Neh. ix. 30; see ch. x. 29; in which passages the ‘Law’ and the ‘ Prophets’ 
only are referred to. In ch. xii., however, Nehemiah further alludes to the third di- 
vision of the Old Testament as forming, with the other parts, an authoritative code. 
Having spoken of the ordinances of the Law respecting the Priests, he adds that 
“singers and porters kept the ward of their God * * * according to the com- 
mandment of David and of Solomon his son. For in the days of David and Asaph 
of old, there were chief of the singers, and songs of praise and thanksgiving unto 
God.”—ver, 44-46. 

The relation of Nehemiah to the formation of the Canon is confirmed by the 
author of the second book of Maccabees. Having stated the zeal of Jeremiah fo: the 
preservation of the Ark, and of the Law, which the writer tells us that he had 


284 THE COMMISSION TO WRITE, [LECT. VII 


Such allusions to the Law and the Prophets, implying, as 
they do, that a collection of sacred documents was already in 
existence, suggest a brief consideration of some circumstances 
connected with the closing of the Old Testament Canon, Here 
also, as in those numerous instances so frequently noticed, we can 
trace the continued use of natural means, and the employment 
of what, to a human eye, might appear merely natural motives, 
in securing this permanent record of Divine Revelation. The 
various incidents of Jewish history, in the age of Ezra and Ne- 
hemiah, had a necessary tendency to turn the attention of their 
countrymen to the books of the prophets. Even so early as the 
Assyrian period of Prophecy,’ the calamities which impended 
over the kingdoms of Israel and Judah had cast their shadows 
before. In the midst of the gloomy present the future became 
gradually invested with greater interest. Through the entrance 
of the penalties which had been foretold, the blessings, of which 
the chosen people had received an equal assurance, acquired a 
new significance ; and hence the promissory side of the Law at- 
tracted the hopes, as its denunciations awoke the fears, of the 
nation, The history of Josiah* exemplifies the existence of this 
latter state of feeling ; while the former is accounted for by the 
light which passing events cast upon the language of the pro- 


“found in the records (εὑρίσκεται δὲ ἐν ταῖς uxoypadaic)”—ch. ii. 1, &., he adds: 
‘The same things also were reported in the writings and commentaries of Neemias ; 
and how he, founding a library (βιβλιοθήκην), gathered together the Acts of the Kings, 
and the Prophets, and of David, and the Epistles of the Kings concerning the holy 
gifts (τὰ περὶ τῶν βασιλέων, καὶ προφητῶν, καὶ Ta τοῦ Aavid, καὶ ἐπιστολὰς βασιλ. περὶ 
dvabeudtwv)’—ver. 18, Thus Nehemiah is compared with Jeremiah ; the latter hav- 
ing preserved the Law, the former the other writings, of which he proceeded to form 
a collection—{Havernick, loc. cit. s. 46, shows that 9ιβ λιοθήκη is to be understood in 
this sense: cf. Maitland’s “ Dark Ages,” p. 194). It is also to be particularly noted 
that Nehemiah is here said to have “ gathered together” (ἐπισυνῆγαγε) the different 
elements of Jewish literature, and thence selected what was tobe reckoned as Canon- 
ical. As to the principle on which this selection was made see supra Lect. ii. p. 54, &e. 

1 The ‘prophetic age’ of Jewish history commences from Samuel (cf. “All the 
prophets from Samuel,” &c.—<Acts, iii, 24; “David also, and Samuel, and the pro- 
phets”—Heb. xi. 32), and includes about seven hundred years, viz., B. C. 1100-400. 
It has been thus divided: (1.) The ‘early period’ (B. C, 1100-800), in which the co 
lective activity of the ‘ Prophetic Order’ was conspicuous, and which terminated with 
the contemporaries of Elijah and Elisha. (2.) The ‘ Assyrian period’ (B. C. 800-700), 
in which, as in the periods which followed, the agency of individual prophets is em- 
ployed. Here the leading subject is the relation of the Assyrians to the people of 
God: under this head are included the predictions of Isaiah. (3.) The ‘ Chaldean 
period’ (B. C. 625-536). (4.) The period which followed the Captivity, viz., B. C, 
536—400. See Knobel, ‘‘ Prophetismus der Hebriier,” ii. s. 18 ff. 

2 9 Kings, xxii.; 2 Chron. xxxiv. The thirteenth year of Josiah’s reign, in which 
vear Jeremiah’ functions commenced (Jer. i. 2), was B. C. 629. 


LECT, VIl.] THE FORM OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN. 285 


phets respecting the future,—language which was but a devel 

opment of the predictions of the Law.’ In proportion to the 
importance thus attached to the prophetic announcements, was. 
felt to be the need of preserving the records in which they were 
perpetuated. Such, we cannot doubt, was the external motive 
which occasioned the collection of those sacred writings in which 
the past glories of Israél were still recalled to mind ; and by 
which, in the depth of their present humiliation, the children 
of Abraham were solaced by a series of imperishable Prophecy. 
Acting, therefore, upon this external impulse, the inspired men,” 
who formed the collection of the books of the Old Testament, 
were divinely guided to select from the literature of their nation 
those documents only ‘‘ which had been written for our learning” 
at the express command of God. With reference to this sub- 
ject it has been already shown that in order to give any account 
of the selection of such books, and such books only, as compo- 
nents of the Canon, their Divine inspiration must be assumed ;* 
another feature of the case, however, remains to be examined 
here. 

It is not unfrequently urged by the opponents of a definite 
theory of Inspiration that, admitting the authenticity and gen- 
uineness of the sacred books, we have no evidence which shall 
entitle us to assert that their authors claimed for themselves any 
distinct Commission from God to preserve a written record of His 
successive revelations, or to compose a narrative of the events 
which marked the development of the Theocracy. Still less, it 
has been argued, can we maintain that such a Commission was 
actually given. Hence it follows, we are also told, that a pro- 
found sense of the importance of the facts recorded, or of the 
communications which the prophets had received from heaven, 
must be regarded as the only motive which caused the composi- 
tion of the different parts of the Bible. It may be well to ex- 
amine such a statement with some particularity. 


? Of. Deut. xxviii—xxx. 

5 “The agency of the Holy Spirit has brought into existence the books of the 
Bible; the agency of the Holy Spirit has also brought them together. The former 
agency alone is not sufficient to account for all that is peculiar to Scripture; under 
that influence, which we are accustomed to name Inspiration, we must comprehend 
both agencies."—Hofmann, Weissagung und Hrfitllung, 5. 49. 

° See supra, Lecture ii. p. 53, &e. 

4 “A third form, in which the mechanical idea of Inspiration has been upheld,’ 
writes Mr. Morell, “15 that which asserts a distinct commission in respect to the au 


286 THE COMMISSION TO WRITE. [LECT. VII. 


Were it possible to prove that God had issued to chosen indi- 
viduals a special Commission to compose certain narratives, no 
one, it may be presumed, would venture to assert that the sacred 
penmen were left unaided in the performance of that duty, or 
that any imperfection could possibly exist in the work so pro- 
duced.* There are, it is true, many cases in which we have no 
specific intimation of such a Divine Commission ; and yet, even 
nere, the Old Testament writers often employ language which im- 
plies that they had abundant reason to believe that they were 
moved by an impulse from above. Take, for example, the phrase 
so continually made use of, ‘‘ Thus saith Jehovah ;” or the words 
of David, ‘“‘ The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and His word 
was in my tongue.” So also the prophets at times inform us 
of the manner in which they received their Commission from 
God. ‘‘Gird up thy loins,” said the Lord to Jeremiah, “and 
speak unto them all that I command thee.”* And to such com- 
mands, we are told, was added an inward spiritual impulse : 
“Truly,” said Micah, ‘I am full of power by the Spirit of the 
Lord, and of judgment, and of might, to declare unto Jacob his 
transgressions, and to Israel his sin.”* Frequent intimations of 
this nature, clearly denoting their Divine source and their Divine 


thorship of each one of the sacred books.” * * * “ Admitting them [the Sacred 
Books now constituting the Canon] to be genuine, and admitting them to be inspired, 
—what did the authors themselves in good faith mean to include under the notion 
of Inspiration? Did they claim for themselves any distinct commission to pen the 
works in question? was such a commission at the time awarded to them? or was 
not the whole of the Inspiration attaching to them rather viewed as resulting simply 
from the extraordinary intuitions of Divine truth which they had received, and which 
they were here impelled by a deep sense of their infinite value to depict?” * * * 
“ With regard to the prophetic writings, these certainly occupy a much higher po- 
sition than the historical books, inasmuch as we learn that the authors actually re- 
ceived a prophetic commission to declare the counsels of God to the people, but this 
does not necessarily involve any distinct and separate commission to write tho books 
in question ;—nor have we any reason to regard their writings as inspired in any 
other sense than as being the rescript of their inward prophetic consciousness.”— 
Philos. of Religion, pp. 159-162. See also supra, Lecture i. p. 27, note 4. 

τ “Though the origin of the words, even as of the miraculous acts, be supernat- 
ural—yet the former once uttered—the latter once having taken their place among 
the phenomena of the senses, the faithful recording of the same does not of itself im- 
ply, or seem te require, any supernatural working, other than as all truth and good- 
ness are such {but see supra, Lecture vi. p. 236]. In the books of Moses, and once 
or twice in the prophecy of Jeremiah, I find it, indeed, asserted that not only the 
words were given, but the recording of the same enjoined by the special command of 
God, and doubtess executed under the special guidance of the Divine Spirit. As to all 
such passages, therefore, there can be no dispute.”—Coleridge, Confess. of an Inquiring 
Spirit, Letter in. p. 16. 

5.2 Sam. xxiii. 2. * Jor. i. 17. 

* Micah, iti 8. Cf. Lect. iii p. 128, &e. 


LECT, VII.] THE FORM OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN. 287 


authority, present themselves in various books of Scripture: to 
which must be added the many external reasons’ which in like 
manner guided the Jewish Church to recognise their inspiration. 
We are not ‘eft, however, to such intimations, conclusive as they 
must appear to every unprejudiced mind : instances of an express 
command from God to commit to writing various portions of the 
Bible are far more numerous and significant than may at first 
sight be supposed. 

«The Lord said unto Moses, Write this fora memorial in a 
book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua.” Here we are to 
observe, that Jehovah commands His servant to place on record, 
not some revelation of His secret counsels,—not any express pre- 
diction of events still future,—not a class of precepts relating to 
spiritual or ritual worship,—but a simple narrative of an histori- 
cal fact ; namely, the defeat of the Amalekites at Rephidim.’ It 
is also to be noticed, that this record was designed to serve for a 
“memorial :” “for,” the Lord further informs Moses, “ I will ut- 
terly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven :” 
—words which refer to a people of whom it is afterward said 
that they “feared not God.” Here we see foreshadowed the 
great truth subsequently enunciated by the Apostle when addu- 
cing the facts of Jewish history ; “ All these things happened unto 


1 KE, g. the miracles performed by individual prophets; the accomplishment of 
their predictions (cf. Lecture v. p. 212, note’); such acts as that performed by Isaiah, 
of which we read in his eighth chapter (see infra, p. 291); &e. &e. 

2 Exod. xvii. 14. 

8 Mr. Blunt (‘‘Undesigned Coincidences,” § xvi. 3rd ed. p. 69, &c.) has pointea 
out the connexion of this narrative with the sacred history: “ All the congregation 
of the children of Israel journeyed * * * and pitched in Rephidim: and there 
was no water for the people to drink.”—Exod. xvii. 1. On this the people “ murmured 
against Moses” (ver.-3), who entreats the Lord. “And the Lord said unto Moses 
* + #* Behold [ will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb, and thou 
shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it. * * * And Moses did 
so * * * Then came Amalek and fought with Israel in Rephidim” (ver. 4-8). In 
order to perceive the connexion here, it is only necessary to call to mind, on the one 
hand, the miraculous supply of water in an arid wilderness; and, on the other, the re- 
peated allusions, in the narrative of Moses, to disputes for the possession of a well (e. 
g. Gen, xxi. 25; xxvi. 22; Exod. ii. 17; Numb xx. 17; xxi. 22; Deut. ii 6; Judges, 
v. 11). The sudden gushing of water from the rock conferred upon the Israelites an 
invaluable treasure; and the sin of Amalek consisted, not in their natural desire to 
possess or share this unexpected supply, but in their refusing to recognise the Divine 
intervention; and, by fighting against Israel, fighting against God. “Such,” ob- 
serves Mr. Blunt, “1 persuade myself, is the true force of an expression in Deut. xxv. 
18, used in reference to this very incident,—for Amalek is there said to ‘ have smitten 
them wher they were weary, and to have feared not God ;’ that is, to have done it in 
defiance of a miracle, which ought to have impressed them with a fear of God; indi- 
eating, as Οὗ x0urse it did, that God willed not the destruction of this people.”—p. 74 


288 THE COMMISSION TO WRITE. [LECT. VIN. 


them for ensamples ; and they are written for our admonition.” 
From this statement of 8. Paul, taken by itself, we might have 
inferred that Moses received a Commission from Ged to compose 
a written narrative of the various historical events which he re- 
cords: but we are able to appeal to his express announcement 
of the fact. ‘These are the journeys of the children of Israel, 
which went forth out of the land of Egypt with their armies un- 
der the hand of Moses and Aaron. And Moses wrote their goings 
out according to their journeys, by the commandment of the 
Lord.” At is needless to dwell upon the motives which led to 
the composition of those portions of the books of Moses which were 
not of a strictly historical character ; suffice it to quote the words 
of the Lord by the prophet Hosea: “J have written to Ephraim the 
ereat things of My Law, but they were counted as a strange thing.” 


ae Cornexe ΤΊΣ 2? Numb. xxxiii. 1, 2. 

3. Hosea, viii. 12. With respect to this portion also of the Pentateuch, we read of 
various commands which Moses received. Thus in the case of the “ Song” contained 
in Deut. xxxii. 1-43, it is written: ‘‘ And the Lord said unto Moses * * * Write 
ye this Song for you, and teach it the children of Israel; that this Song may be a wit- 
ness for Me against the children of Israel. * * * Moses therefore wrote this Song 
the same day.”—Deut. xxxi. 16-22. Of too, bid. ver. 9-11: ‘“‘ And Moses wrote 
this Law, and delivered it unto the Priests the sons of Levi,” ἄς : on which practice 
see supra, Lect. ii. p. 68, the remarks of Josephus. That Moses from time to time 
committed to writing the words of the Lord as he received them (and we cannot doubt 
that he did so at God’s command, as in the particular case of this “‘ Song”), we learn 
from Ex. xxiv. 4, where, after Moses had ‘‘told the people all the words of the Lord, 
and all the judgments,” we read that he “wrote all the words of the Lord.” Then 
follows the remarkable narrative of the delivery of the Tables of stone: “I will give 
thee,” said Jehovah Himself, “ Tables of stone, and a Law, and Commandments which 
I have written” (ver. 12),—of which we further read that they were “ written with the 
finger of God” (Ex. xxxi. 18; Deut. ix. 19); and which when broken by Moses (Ex. 
xxxii. 19). were renewed by the Lord (see Ex. xxxiv. 1-28; Deut. x. 1-4) on the 
Mount. On this occasion Moses mentions again that he received a command to write: 
“The Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words,” &c.—Hx. xxxiv. 27. 

Such was the commencement of the Old Testament Canon, for the preservation of 
which provision was made as follows: “It came to pass when Moses had made an 
end of writing the words of this Law in a Book until they were finished, that Moses 
commanded the Levites, saying, Take the Book of the Law and put it in the side of 
the Ark of the Covenant” (Deut. xxxi. 24-26)—where it was kept with the most holy 
badges of their faith. To this collection of writings, combining a narrative of kistor- 
ical facts, doctrinal precepts, and predictions of the future, Joshua is referred by God 
Himself: ‘This Book of the Law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt 
meditate therein day and night.”—Josh. i. 8. And here, considering the hallowed 
character of the Law, as well as the express statements which have been just quoted, 
the remark is obvious that, to a collection so made, no Israelite, in future times, could 
have ventured to add any further documents without a command from Jehovah equally 
explicit with those which Moses had received. And yet we know that Joshua him- 
self, as well as the successive writers of Scripture, did make such additions as if they 
were performing what was their obvious duty. Thus we read, without a word of 
comment on the part of the historian, that Joshua ‘wrote in the Book of the Law of 
God” (ch. xxiv. 26). Samuel, too, when he “ told the people the manner of the king: 
dom,” “wrote in the Book (nee3); and laid it up before the Lord.’--1 Sam. x 26 


LECT, VII.] THE FORM OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN. 289 


Precise information, as to the manner in which the prophets 
obeyed the Divine command to place their predictions on record, 
is supplied in the thirty-sixth chapter of the book of Jeremiah. 
The chapter opens with the following injunction: ‘“ This word 
came unto Jeremiah from the Lord, saying, Take thee a roll of 
a book, and write therein all the words that I have spoken unto 
thee against Israel, and against Judah, and against all the na- 
tions.” The ΠΕ then proceeds to recount how he dictated 
his work to his amanuensis ;’ and how it came to pass that no 
human opposition, or attempt to destroy the document so drawn 
up, availed to impede the promulgation of the Divine decrees. 
In this instance we perceive that a Commission to write was 
given: we are informed of the manner in which the Commission 
was executed ; and also of the means by which God provided 
that His will thus to transmit to after-times the memorial of His 
revelations should overrule all resistance whether of king or of 
people.” 


“ Here [as well as in Exod. xvii. 14; Deut. xxviii. 58] the expression “Dom shows 
that reference is made to a definite Book, already in existence, to which Samuel’s 
document was now added, and thus the previous collection increased.”—Havernick, 
loc. cit., 5. 20. This same proceeding was continued in future ages. Isaiah,—in im- 
agination, regarding his denunciations against Idumea as already fulfilled,—invites 
all who doubted to compare with this fulfilment his recorded prediction: “ Seek ye 
out of the Book of the Lord (7 7-50-57 177) and read; no one of these shall fuil, 
none shall want her mate: for My [i. 6. Jehovah’s] mouth it hath commanded, and 
[resumes the prophet] His Spirit it hath gathered them.”—xxxiv. 16. (Observe the 
union here of the Divine and human agencies in uttering this prediction.) Isaiah 
‘“seems here to refer to the depositing his prophecy in a collection of oracles and 
sacred writings, from which posterity could judge of the justice of his predictions. 
Towards the close of the Exile a beginning had, beyond any doubt, been made of a 
collection, and editing of the national literature,—there was a beginning, in short, of 
the formation of a Sacred Codex. A later trace of this collection occurs in Dan. ix. 2 
[“I Daniel understood by Books the number of the years, whereof the word of the 
Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet”], where mention is made of O75», ‘‘ books,” 
among which was the book of Jeremiah. The employment of w77, which approxi- 
mutes to the épevvdte τὰς γραφώς (John, v. 39; cf. vii. 52), presupposes even now a 
time when men began to study the Holy Scriptures.”—Gesenius, Der. Proph. Jesaia, 
i. 8, 921 (Cf. Ps. xl. 7; Is. xxix. 18.) See also Jer. xxv. 13: “I will bring upon 
that land all My words which I have pronounced against it, even all that is written 
in this book which Jeremiah hath prophesied against all the nations.” Cf. Lecture 
vi. p. 242, note *. 

* “Then Jeremiah called Baruch the son of Neriah: and Baruch wrote from the 
mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the Lord, which He had spoken unto him, upon 
a roll of a book.”—ver. 4. 

3 “Then the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, after that the King had burned 
she roll * * * saying, Take thee again another roll, and write in it all the former 
words,” &e.—ver. 27, 28. Cf. “The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord, say- 
img * * * Write thee all the words that I have spoken unto thee in a book.” == 
Jer. xxx. 1, 2. See also ch. xxii. 30; li. 60: ch. xxix. is clearly of the same class; 
“orapare ver. 1 and 4. Commands of the same nature were given to Ezekiel: ‘The 


19 


290 THE COMMISSION TO WRITE. [LECT. vn 


Nor is this the only information which has been vouchsafed 
to us on this matter. We are also told by Isaiah what measures 
were taken to attest for after-times the Divine character of the 
books thus written. The Law, it is to be remembered, had ex- 
pressly enjoined that false prophets should be put to death: not, 
only those who should prophesy in the name of other gods, but 
also those who should presume to speak in Jehovah’s Name with- 
out His command.’ To the latest period of Prophecy this in- 
junction was rigidly enforced. God Himself declared, by the 
mouth of Zechariah, that it was the duty of even parents to in- 
flict this penalty upon the false prophet :—‘‘ Then his father and 
his mother that begat him shall say unto him, Thou shalt not 
live; for thou speakest lies in the name of the Lord: and his 
father and his mother shall thrust him through when he pro- 
phesieth.”” The permanent obligation of this precept—a fact 
which the repetition of it by so late a prophet as Zechariah es- 
tablishes—enables us clearly to discern the grounds which guided 
Ezra and Nehemiah in their selection of those books which were 


word of the Lord came to me, saying, Son of man, write thee the name of the day,” 
&c.—xxiv. 1, 2; ‘‘Thou son of man, show the House to the house of Israel * *: * 
and all the Laws thereof: and write it in their sight, that they may keep the whole 
form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them.”—xliii. 10, 11. Can we 
suppose, when we read ‘“‘ Daniel had a dream, and vision of his head upon his bed: 
then he wrote the dream,” &c.—vii. 1, that the prophet placed this revelation on 
record without the Divine sanction, merely because we are not expressly told that the 
command was given? 

1 Deut. xiii. 1-3; xviii. 20. ‘And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we 
know the word which the Lord hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the 
name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which 
the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously.”—ver. 21, 
22. Hence, in the case of predictions, the accomplishment of which was reserved for 
the distant future, some proofs of the nature here promised by Jehovah Himself, or 
some exhibition of miraculous agency were required, and were given. E. g. Hananiah 
of Gibeon, in direct opposition to Jeremiah (cf. xxvii. 2, xxviii. 10), had ventured to 
prophesy: ‘‘Thus saith the Lord, Even so will I break the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar 
within the space of two full years.” But Jeremiah immediately declared, ‘The Lord 
hath not sent thee. * * * Therefore thus saith the Lord, Behold this year thou 
shalt die, because thou hast taught rebellion against the Lord. So Hananiah the 
prophet died the same year.”—Jer. xxviii. 11-17. See also Lecture y. Ὁ. 214, note *. 
The opposing claims of false prophets were among the most severe trials which the 
servants of God had to encounter. ‘ Mine heart within me,” said Jeremiah, “is 
broken because of the prophets.” —x xiii. 9; and he writes to the captives in Babylon: 
“Let not your prophets and your diviners * * * deceive you * * * for 
they prophesy falsely unto you in My Name: I have not sent them, saith the Lord.” 
—ch. xxix. 8,9. Again: “Because that Shemaiah hath prophesied unto you, and I 
sent him not, and he caused you to trust inalie: therefore thus saith the Lord, Behoid 
I will punish Shemaiah and his seed.”—ver. 31, 32. See also (ver. 21) the reference 
to Ahab and Zedekiah. Compare to the same effect Ezek. xiii. 

? Zech. xiii, 3. 


LECT, VII.] THE FORM OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN. 291 


inspired : for, independently of their own inspiration when dis- 
charging this function, we at once perceive that no book could 
have been put forward as Divine had there not been a public 
recognition that it had been composed at God’s command{/ How 
this was effected, Isaiah, as I have observed, informs us, when 
giving a narrative of the manner in which he announced to King 
Ahaz the approaching conquest of Israel by the Assyrians :— 
‘““The Lord said unto me, Take thee a great roll, and write in it 
with a man’s pen concerning Maher-shaial-hash-baz.’” The brief 
prediction conveyed by this name is then developed ; previously 
to which the prophet had taken two “faithful witnesses” to at- 
test his words’ which he commits to a formal legal document ; 
thus ensuring, in opposition to the prevailing incredulity of the 


see supra, Lecture ii. p. 53, note ', an important remark quoted from Sack. 

? Tsai. viii. 1: “a great roll”—3.13- 753. Vitringa (7 loc., t. i. p. 203) compares 
the “roll of a book (4Do-n537)"”—Jer. xxxvi. 4; and explains that there were two 
modes employed by the prophets for the purpose of recording the Divine communicae 
tions. (1.) As here, by means of a series of ‘‘rolls,” or sheets of parchment wrapped 
round a cylindrical roller, which admitted of being preserved with greater care; and 
which method was therefore employed for transmitting the prophecy to future times 
(cf. supra, p. 289, note *). (2.) By means of tablets of some smooth material (ΓΤ) 
which were hung up in some public place so that the people might the sooner become 
acquainted with the Divine will. Such were the Tables of stone on which the Ten 
Commandments were first written (Exod. xxxi. 18; Deut. ix. 9); and thus the 
prophet Habakkuk explains the custom, ‘‘The Lord answered me and said, Write the 
Vision and make it plain wpon tables, that he may run that readeth it.”—ii. ἃ. Both 
methods are described where the Lord tells Isaiah: ‘‘ Now go, write it before them in 
a table (™5-5» Aan>), and note it in a book (75d) that it may be for the time to come 
forever and ever.”—xxx. 8 :—‘‘Sensus mandati est, ut Propheta suum hune.Elenchum 
scriberet in tabula quam ipsis hoe tempore committeret legendam; et simul exararet 
in Libro in usum et memoriam posterorum.”—Vitringa, 7m loc. Ὁ. ii. p. 171. (Gesenius, 
however, observes that in place of 1.51 the Chaldee reads m5 in Isai. viii, 1—Der 
Proph. Jesaia, i. 5. 324). The theory which Calvin has advanced on this subject is, no 
doubt, ingenious; but is, as he himself admits, merely conjectural: ‘ Posteaquam 
prophetz concionem habuerant ad populum, brevem ejus summam colligebant, quam 
valvis templi affigerent, ut omnibus pateret ac melius innotesceret prophetia. Que 
cum per aliquot dies satis patuisset, auferebatur a ministris templi, atque reponebatur in 
thesaurum, ut perpetuum ejus rei monumentum extaret. Hine confectos esse libros pro- 
phetarum verisimile est: idque colligi potest ex secundo capite Habac. ver. 2, siquis 
ipsum rite expendat: atque etiam ex capite octavo hujus prophete.’— Comm. in 
Isai., Preef. 

5. “ And I took unto me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zech- 
ariah the sop of Jeberechiah.”-—ver. 2. All admit that Uriah was the perscn men- 
tioned in 2 Kings, xvi. 10-16: ‘ King Ahaz sent to Urijah the priest the fashion of 
the altar. * * * Thus did Urijah the priest according to all that King Ahaz 
pommanded.” Gesenius (in loc., 5. 327) thinks that Zechariah was the Levite men- 
tioned in 2 Chron. xxix. 13. On the other hand, Mr. Blunt with great probability 
conjectures that the father of the wife of Ahaz was the witness thus chosen by Isaiah ; 
inasmuch as we read of “ Hezekiah the son of Ahaz,” that ‘his mother’s name was 
Abi the daughter of Zachariah.” —2 Kings, xviii. 2. ‘‘ We can account for the choios 
of Isaiah, who wished the transaction in which he was engaged to be enforced upon 
the attention of Ahaz with all the advantages he could command, and so selected two 
ef the King’s bosom friends to testify concerning it.”—loc. cit., p. 233. 


292 THE COMMISSION TO WRITE. [LECT. VI. 


age, that what he had written could not, at a future period, be 
looked upon as a mere ‘ prophecy after the event.’ As long as 
the event did not come to pass, Isaiah was prepared to find his 
announcement disregarded. Before the fulfilment of their pre- 
dictions, the prophets were continually subjected to scorn and 
ridicule :—‘‘ The word of the Lord came unto me,” writes 
Ezekiel, “saying, Son of man, what is that proverb that ye have 
in the land of Israel saying, The days are prolonged, and every 
vision faileth ?”* The precaution, therefore, taken by Isaiah in 
the case before us, had reference to the attestation of his words 
for future ages : and accordingly, having secured witnesses to the 
date and performance of his Commission, he received another ex- 
press command from God “to bind up and seal” the document 
to which he had committed the record of this revelation.” The 
prophet obeys, and, suspending his reputation, and perhaps his 
life, upon the issue, calmly awaits the accomplishment of his 
prediction.’ 

From all this we may infer, with a degree of confidence propor- 
tional to our trust in the veracity of Scripture, that its severa. 
books were designed by their Divine Author to serve as a stand- 


1 Hizek. xii. 21, 22. 

? “Bind up (ΠΣ) the testimony ("71>"—1the attested oracle, cf. ver, 2), and the Law 
(το) among My disciples.”—ver. 16. These words, in which the prophet, refers to 
vv. 21, 22, form part of anew revelation supplementary to the former, and introduced 
by the phrase: “‘The Lord spake thus to me with a strong hand.”—ver, 11. (See 
supra, Lect. iil. p. 129, note’.) This prediction, observe Gesenius (loc. cit, s. 341), 
Isaiah was commanded to secure against every suspicion of falsification by binding 
it up (77x, to wrap in a@ cloth), and sealing it till its fulfilment: cf. Dan. xii. 4: 
“Thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the 
end,” &e. 

* The intrepid discharge of their duty by the prophets affords a conclusive proof 
of their conviction that their mission was from God. The danger which they en- 
countered was no imaginary one. The people, writes Nehemiah, ‘‘ cast Thy Law be 
hind their backs, and slew Thy prophets which testified against them.’”—ix. 26. Cf. 
the case of Zechariah the son of Jehoiada, put to death by King Joash, 2 Chron. 
xxiv. 21; or the statement of Jeremiah: ‘Then spake the priests and the prophets 
unto the princes and to all the people, saying, This man is worthy to die: for he 
hath prophesied against this city. Then spake Jeremiah, The Lord sent me to pro- 
phesy against this House, and against this city all the words that ye have heard. 
Therefore now mend your ways * * * ag for me, behold I am in your hand: de 
with me as seemeth good unto you,”’—xxvi. 11-24; see also the account of the 
murder of Urijah by Jehoiakim, 7bid., ver. 20-23. Notwithstanding this certainty 
of persecution, the prophets fearlessly performed their duty. Amos disregarded the 
power of Jeroboam (ch. vil. 10, &e.); and Elijah, although he avoided unnecessary 
danger (‘‘When he saw that, he arose, and went for his life,” &e —1 Kings, xix. 3), 
did not shrink from denouncing the sins of Ahab (1 Kings, xxi. 17, &c). Even 
Balaam resisted the solicitation of the King of Moab; and the “disobedient prophet* 
braved the King beside the altar (1 Kings, xiii). 


LECT. ViI.] THE FORM OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN. 298 


ing witness and memorial of His Revelation whether declared by 
the mouth of prophets, or manifested in the history of the cov- 
enant-people. Hence it is that Daniel has quoted by name the 
predictions of Jeremiah, as being contained in the books which 
he was enabled to understand ;’ hence, too, the Divine messenger 
who instructs him declares: ‘‘ I will show thee that which is 
noted in the Scripture of Truth.”? The very phrase ‘ Scripture,” 
indeed, or written document, as employed in this saying,—as 
made use of also by the various writers of the New Testament, 
and even by Christ Himself,’—of itself proves the justice of the 
inferences already drawn. ὃ. John, moreover, in the Apocalypse, 
on twelve different occasions, states that he received a command 
to write the narrative of his visions :* and to the narrative thus 
composed were applied by the angel words which equally de- 
scribe each portion of the Bible: ‘“‘ He saith unto me, These are 
the true sayings of God.” 

That the New Testament, like the Old, was designed as a 
memorial for after times, 8. John has not obscurely intimated 
when he announced the motive which led to the composition of 
his Gospel : ‘‘ These are written that ye might believe that Jesus 
is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have 
life through His name.” Of this destination of the sacred 
writings for the use of every future age, a striking proof is af- 
forded by the fact that, while combating the errors and heresies 
of their day, the Apostles never descend into details, neither 
naming the heresiarchs, nor describing the factions with which 
they had to contend: the only exception to this reserve occurs 


1 Dan. ix. 2. 2 max an23—Dan. x. 21. 

3 “Moses “ wrote of Me.”—S. John, v. 46. 

4 “What thou seest, write in a Book (ὃ βλέπεις γράψον εἰς Bi3Aiov)”—Rev. i 11: 
αὐ 101. τ᾿. 1 501. lS sitet) 4s σιν 15:5 π|Ξ 9. ΣΙ: Ds 

5 Rev. xix. 9. 

6 S. John, xx. 31. The fact of S. Luke having addressed each of his writings to 
an individual may seem inconsistent with this idea; and may appear to prove that 
they were not intended for general use. The contrary, however, is the case. ὃ), 
Luke’s writings, as internal evidence shows, were designed for Gentile readers; and 
at this period there was only one channel through which the works of a Christian 
could be published at Rome. By the Roman law literary production, when presented 
to some man of station, could claim, were the gift (‘strena,” “‘munusculum”), ac- 
cepted, his support as patronus libri ;—a relation which imposed duties analogous to 
those of the patronus persone. In the case before us, therefore, 8. Luke’s dedication 
imposed upon Theophilus the duty of multiplying copies of the Gospel and of the 
Acts, and of distri} uting them to the utmost of his ability:—see Hug, “ Hiwleit.,” Th. 
py Ὁ 15: GR 


294 THE COMMISSION TO WRITE. [LECT. VI. 


in the confidential communications of 8. Paul to Timothy.’ It is 
not to be denied, that the New Testament affords no direct in- 
formation on this subject, and that it is equally silent as to the 
collection of its several parts, So far, indeed, are the sacred 
writers from taking notice of matters respecting which we might 
beforehand have anticipated some information that, throughout 
the Acts of the Apostles, which enter with such minuteness into 
S. Paul’s history, we can trace no hint of his ever having written 
an Epistle? But if we add to the arguments respecting these 
questions which are founded upon external testimony and inter- 
nal presumptions, the fact of the existence of “spiritual gifts” 
in the early Church, especially that of ‘‘ discerning of spirits” 
which §. Paul ranks so highly ;* and if we, at the same time, 
bear in mind how §. John appeals to this test, and alludes to its 
necessity : “‘ Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits 
whether they are of God, because many false prophets are gone 
out into the world ,“—if these circumstances, I say, be borne in 
mind, we can feei as little doubt respecting the Divine influence 
which effected the formation of the New Testament Canon, and 
designed the composition of its several parts, as the observations 
already made allow us to entertain with reference to the Old. 
The various parts of the Canon having been successively com- 
mitted to writing at the Divine command, and thus presenting 
to inspired men in after-times certain records which they also 
could consult, the question at once suggests itself—How far, and 
in what sense, have its earlier portions been made use of in those 
books which are of later date? That the successive authors of 
Scripture have availed themselves of the works of their predeces- 
sors, requires no proof ; and we have already considered’ the man- 
ner in which the sacred writers, when referring to previous por- 
tions of the Bible, have quoted its language as proceeding from 
God, or from the Holy Ghost. It only remains for us, therefore, 


11 Tim. 1, 20; 2 Tim. ii. 17,18. The fault of Diotrephes (3 S. John, 9) was 
plainly one of insubordination merely. Cf. Thiersch, ‘Versuch zur Herstell.” 
5, 255. 

? Wordsworth, ‘On the Canon,” p. 169. 

* Διακρίσεις πνευμάτων----Ἰ Cor. xii. 10. ‘Let the prophets speak two or three, 
anc let the others judge (οἱ ἄλλοι diaxpivérwoar).”"—xiv. 29; cf. ver. 37. See 
Appendix K. 

4 Δοκιμάζετε τὰ πνεύματα.---Ἰ §. John, iv. 1. See supra, Lecture ii. p. 53, 
note ?. 

5 See supra, Lecture vi. p. 268, &e. 


LEUT, vit.] | THE FORM OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN. 295 


now tv examine the form of the passages in which such quota- 
tions occur ; to inquire how the frequent deviations from the 
words of the authors cited are to be explained ; and to prove 
that no conclusion adverse to the perfect inspiration of Holy 
Scripture can be drawn from any deviations of this nature. 
Before entering upon this feature of the question, I would 
briefly touch upon one of the leading topics of modern criticism, 
—I mean the relation of the Synoptical Gospels, one to the 
other. Every reader of the New Testament must have noticed, 
not merely the similarity of certain sections occurring in the 
Gospels of 5. Matthew, 8. Mark, and 8. Luke, but also the repe- 
tition of whole passages, frequently without the least variation 
of language or expression, Thus there are forty-two sections 
common to these three Evangelists: in addition to which there 
are twelve sections common to the Gospels of 8. Matthew and 
S. Mark ; five to those of 8. Mark and 8. Luke ; and fourteer 
to those of §. Luke and ὃ. Matthew, which in cach case are 
wanting in the third Gospel.’ To explain these facts three prin- 
cipal hypotheses have been started : Firstly, that there was an 
original Gospel, no longer extant, which served as the basis of 
those which have come down to us. Secondly, that among our 
Synoptical Gospels whichever was of earliest date was made use 
of by the writer of that which came next in order of time ; both 
having been, in like manner, employed by the author of the third. 
Thirdly, That a body of oral teaching had been preserved for 
some years by tradition ; and that each Evangelist made use of 
this tradition as he judged most suitable for the end at which he 
aimed. It is unnecessary here to dwell’ upon the numerous va- 
riations and combinations of these different hypotheses: their 
value cannot be better estimated than by keeping in mind what 
has been justly remarked by the author of the most celebrated 
of the three :—namely, that in consequence of the insufficiency 
of historical information, we can never possess perfect certainty 


1 T quote here the statement of Gieseler, ‘Die Entst. der schriftl. Evangelien,” 
§ i. 5. 3; who adds that five sections are altogether peculiar to S. Matthew, two to 
S. Mark, and nine to S. Luke. These facts had been already noticed by S. August- 
ine: “‘ Marcus eum [sril. Mattheum] subsecutus, tanquam pedissequus, et breviator 
ejus videtur. Cum solo quippe Johanne, nihil dixit; solus ipse, perpauca; cum solo 
Luca, pauciora ; cum Matthzeo vero, plurima; et multa pene totidem atque ipsis ver- 
bis, sive cum sola sive cum ceteris consonante.”—De Consensu Hvangelist., lib. i. c. 2, 
t. D1. pars. ii. p. 3. 

2 See Appendix L 


296 THE COMMISSION TO WRITE, [LECT, VM, 


on the subject ; and that, at most, we can only arrive at that 
degree of probability attainable, in general, by historical con- 


jectures,’ 
To which observation I would add, that even were certainty 


attainable in this matter,—were any phase of any of the hypoth- 
eses in question capable of demonstration, and we were, there- 
fore, able to point out the external sources by the aid of which, 
as such hypotheses assume, each Evangelist composed his Gospel, 
—such a result could, in no particular, invalidate, or weaken, or 
in any manner affect, the inspired authority of the New Testa- 
ment. It forms a prominent feature, it will be remembered, of 
the theory of Inspiration maintained in these Discourses, that 
each writer of Scripture made use, on all occasions, of such ma- 
terials as were in his power,’ whether supplied by his own expe- 
rience or by the information of others. This principle, as we 
have seen, forms the foundation of the distinction between Reve- 
lation and Inspiration. The particulars recorded in the pages of 


1 “Man muss sich gleich im Anfange bescheiden, dass man, so verschiedene Wege 
nan auch zur Erklarung dieser Dunkelheiten einschlagen mag, bei dem Unzureich- 
¢nden der historischen Nachrichten doch nie zu vollkommener Gewissheit, sondern 
aur zu der Wahrscheinlichkeit gelangen kann, welcher historische Conjecturen iiber- 
haupt fahig sind.”—Gieseler, loc. cit. s. 1. Schleiermacher’s remark has been often 
quoted: ‘‘ For my part I find it quite enough to prevent me from conceiving the 
»rigin of our three Gospels according to Kichhorn’s theory, tuey [ am to figure to 
myself our good Evangelists surrounded by five or six open rolls or books, and that, 
too, in different languages, looking by turns from one into another, and writing a 
tompilation from them. I fancy myself in a German study of the eighteenth or 
uineteenth century, rather than ia the primitive age of Christianity ; and if this re- 
semblance diminishes, perhaps, my surprise at the well-known image having suggested 
-tself to the critic in the construction of his hypothesis, it renders it the less possible 
for me to believe that such was the actual state of the case." —The Gospel of S. Luke. 
(Thirlwall’s transl., p. 6.) 

? As §. Luke tells us, in the Preface to his Gospel (ch. i. 1-3); or, to take the 
case of the Old Testament, as we learn from the frequent references, by the authors 
of the Books of Kings and Chronicles, to the public documents from which they de- 
rived their information. Thus we read “the rest of the acts of Solomon * * * 
are they not written in the book of the acts of Solomon ?”—1 Kings, xi. 41 Such 
were the documents entitled “the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel,” or 
“of Judah,” which “ are quoted in the Books of Kings thirty-one times up to the his- 
tory of Jehoiakim, inclusive (2 Kings, xxiv. 5).”—Hivernick, Hinleit., Th. τα. Abth. 
i. s. 151; while Nehemiah appeals to these same public records in attestation of his 
own accuracy: ‘The sons of Levi * * * were written in the book of the chron- 
icles, even unto the days of Johanan the son of Eliashib.”—Neh. xii. 23. That Ne- 
hemiah does not refer in these words to our Books of Chronicles, is clear from the 
fact, that while the document quoted by him counts up the High Priests as far as 
the time of ‘‘ Darius the Persian” (ver. 22), the catalogue in the Chronicles termi- 
nates with Jehozadak, who “ went into captivity, when the Lord carried away Judah 
and Jerusalem by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar.”—1 Chron. vi, 15. See Movers, 
“ Krit. Untersuch. iib. die bibl. Chronik,” 5. 234. For some further remarks as to 
this hranch of Hebrew literature, see Appendix Ὁ. 


LECT. VII.] THE FORM OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN. 297 


Scripture were not all matters of Revelation ; the sacred writers 
kave touched upon many topics which were not originally com- 
municated to them from heaven: but this circumstance in no 
respect invalidates the assertion, that the narrative of each and 
every fact of which the Bible takes notice has been handed down 
to future ages. under the influence of Inspiration. In other 
words, the Holy Spirit provided that each portion of the Bible 
should convey such information as best subserved the Divine 
purpose, irrespectively of any consideration as to the character 
of that information,—whether it consisted of plain historical facts, 
or of immediate disclosures of supernatural truths. Hence there- 
fore, any one of the hypotheses proposed in order to explain the 
origin of the Gospels may be accepted as true, without in the 
least affecting the force of a single argument put forward in this 
investigation, Hach Evangelist may have borrowed, to the fullest 
extent, from those sources which modern critics have attempted 
to define, and yet his entire composition will remain, in the most 
literal sense, inspired. But however irrelevant to the inspiration 
of Scripture the fate of all or any of the hypotheses alluded to 
has thus been shown to be, it would be ungrateful of the Biblical 
student to deny that the thorough ventilation which this 
question has received, has been productive of the most bene- 
ficial results as regards the elucidation of the New Testa- 
ment. The mutual connexion of the different portions of the 
Gospel history has been more fully brought to light; the 
phraseology of the sacred writers has been more accurately 
analyzed ; and the structure of the whole Evangelical record 
more perfectly exhibited, in consequence of this discussion, than 
in any previous stage of Biblical exegesis. Without any exag- 
geration, indeed, we may apply to this subject of modern res. are’ 
Bacon’s apposite illustration of the labors of the Alches 508. 
They sought fora phantom of their own imaginin;. and their 
efforts were not rewarded by the prize for which they struggled ; 
but the results which met them on their progress were neither 
few nor unprofitable for other times. The buried treasure, it is 
true, was not discovered in the vineyard, but the toil expended 
in the search found a rich return.’ 


? “Neque tamen negandum est Alchemistas non pauca invenisse, et inventis util- 
ibus bomines donasse. Verum fabula illa non male in illos quadrat de sene qui filiis 


298 THE COMMISSION TO WRITE. [LECT. VIL 


I, To revert, however, to the facts which have suggested this 
digression,—I mean the use made by the sacred writers of those 
books of Scripture which had been already composed, and which 
lay before them while engaged themselves in drawing up their 
own portion of the Bible, —we have to notice, in the first place, 
the constant references by the Old Testament writers to the la- 
bors of their predecessors. For example: the prophecy of Jere- 
miah against Moab is manifestly founded upon the previous 
prediction contained in the twenty-first chapter of the book of 
Numbers.’» Indeed it appears, even from the English Version, 
how Jeremiah repeats, almost verbatim, the words of the Oracle 
preserved by Moses. We have, in point of fact, but this one 
prophecy against Moab ; and yet in what various forms is it re- 
peated by the prophets ! The language of Isaiah, in his fifteenth 
and sixteenth chapters, as well as that of Zephaniah referring in 
like manner. to this same subject, are equally based upon the 
original prediction in the Pentateuch.* Again: among the an- 


aurum in vinea defossum (sed locum se nescire simulans) legaverit ; unde illi viness 
foiendze diligenter incubuerunt, et aurum quidem nullum repertum; sed vindemia ex 
ea cultura facta est uberior.’—Nov. Organ., lib. i. Aphor. 85. 

+ “A fire shall come forth out of Heshbon, and a flame from the midst of Sihon, 
and shall devour the corner of Moab, and the crown of the head of the tumultuous 
ones JIND 23 IPIP) DNV MND SNM IMO Paa ΓΙΞΙΤΡῚ Powma xwwxsD. Woe be 
unto thee, Ὁ Moab! the people of Chemosh perisheth: for thy sons are taken cap- 
tives, and thy daughters captives.”—Jer. xlviii. 45, 46. Cf. ‘There is a fire gone 
out of Heshbon, a flame from the city of Sihon (jm7> Np” Mand Pawn AN Ὁ 13) 
if hath consumed Ar of Moab, and the lords of the high places of Arnon. Woe to 
thee, Moab! ‘Thou art undone, Ὁ people of Chemosh: he hath given his sons that 
escaped, and his daughters into captivity, unto Sihon King of the Amorites.”— 
Numb. xxi. 28, 29; οἷ also ver. 30, with Jer. xlviii. 18, 22. We see, too, that Jere- 
miah has also embodied here the prediction of Balaam: “‘ There shall come a Star out 
of Jacob, and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab 
and destroy all the children of Sheth (>v-722-32 “PAP ANVA MND ‘yr72)).”—Numb. 
xxiv. 17. For some remarks on Jeremiah’s substitution of the noun 7p7p for the 
verb “p7p, see Tholuck’s ‘‘ Vermischte Schriften,” Th. 1. s. 431; where Tholuck also 
observes: “A second example is supplied by the word jixw, which Jeremiah has 
employed instead of the archaic term nv. Here also our lexicographers acknowledge 
that the term used by Jeremiah is to be regarded as an explanatory translation.” 
Thus : ‘mp 23, filii tumultus bellici, i. e. Israelis hostes tumultuantes. Ap. Jeremiam 
xviii. 45 (qui locus ex nostro [Num. xxiv. 17] expressus est), pro eo est: IND 323. -- 
Gesenii Lex. in voc. As we shall have occasion to revert to the principle which these 
facts embody (see infra, p. 308, and p. 325, note 3), the reader will bear in mind what 
has been just noticed, viz., the combination of two texts (Num, xxi. 28, 29; xxiv. 
17) in one quotation, and the alteration by Jeremiah of an expression in the passage 
which he borrows from an earlier writer. Hiivernick observes that it is characteristic 
“of Jeremiah to refer particularly often to earlier writings of the Old Testament, 
and to copy them.”—Hinlezt., Th. τι. Abth. 11. s. 200. 

2 Zeph. ii. 8-10. Cf “He is gone up to Bajith, and to Dibon, the high places, 
to weep: Moab shall howl over Nebo, and over Medeba,” &c.—Isai. xv. 2, with 
“‘Heshbon is perished even unto Dibon, and we have laid them waste even 
unto Nopha: which reacheth unto Medeba.”—Numb, xxi. 30. See also Amos, ii. 1-3. 


LECT. VII.| THE FORM OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN. 299 


nouncements of Jeremiah we find an epitome of the denun- 
ciation of Obadiah against Edom.’ In all these cases, however, 
certain points of difference are observable, which prevent such 
instances of parallelism from degenerating into mere imitation, 
or becoming simple repetitions. Thus, in the case before us, 
the allusions contained in the seventh verse of Obadiah, and iv 
the passage from the nineteenth verse to the end of his pre- 


1 Jer. xlix. 7-22: cf. “I have heard a rumor from the Lord, and an ambassador 
is sent unto the heathen, saying, Gather ye together and come against her and rise up 
to the battle. Forlo! I will make thee small among the heathen, and despised among 
men. Thy terribleness hath deceived thee, and the pride of thine heart, O thou that 
dwellest in the clefts of the rock, that holdest the height of the hill: though thou 
shouldest make thy nest as high as the eagle, I will bring thee down from thence, saith 
the Lord”—ver. 14-16, with—‘ We have heard a rumor from the Lord, and an ambas- 
sador is sent among the heathen, Arise ye, and let us rise up against her in battle. 
Behold I have made thee small among the heathen: thou art greatly despised, The 
pride of thine heart hath deceived thee, thou that dwellest in the clefts of the rock 
whose habitation is high. * * * Though thou exalt thyself as the eagle, and 
though thou set thy nest among the stars, thence will I bring thee down, saith the 
Lord.”—Obad. 1-ά4. Obadiah had “already before him the more ancient predictions 
of Balaam (Numb. xxiv. 18), of Joel (iii. 19), of Amos (i. 11, 12; ix. 12), on the 
ground of which he makes this [viz., the eventual triumph of the Kingdom of God 
(cf. ver. 21) over the powers of this world, as typified by Israel’s conquest of Edom] 
the object of a more detailed prediction.”—Hivernick, Hinlett., Th. u. Abth. ii. s. 317. 
The points of agreement between Isaiah and other writers of Scripture are particu- 
larly to be noted. Thus we may compare Isai. xii. 2, with Exod. xv. 2; Isai. xii, 
with Jer. 1. and li. (cf. Isai. xiii. 19-22, with Jer. 1. 39, 40); Isai. xiii. 6, with Joel, i. 15. 
Or, more particularly still, the passage, ‘The earth shall be full of the knowledge of 
the Lord, as the waters cover the sea’”—lIsai. xi. 9, is repeated with the addition of a 
single term by Habakkuk: ‘“‘The earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the 
glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea’—Hab. ii. 14: words which are em- 
ployed by Isaiah to denote the blessings and the peaceful tenor of the Kingdom of 
Christ; but which are quoted by Habakkuk for the purpose of describing the judg- 
ments and the wrath of God:—see Hengstenberg on Rev. i. 7. (Clarke’s For. Theol. 
Lib. i. p. 81.) The importance of this remark will be seen further on, p. 321, note 4. 
Cf. again, Isai. v. 14, with Hab. ii. 5; Isai. xiv. 4, 18, &e., with Hab. ii. 6,9. ‘The 
expressions of Habakkuk,” writes Hiavernick, “rest so obviously upon the predic- 
tions of Isaiah, that they may be regarded as their further development.”—loc. cit. 
s. 388. 0. Strauss observes on the language of Nahum: “ Luculentissima vestigia 
Jesaize librum indigitant.”—Nahumi de Nino Vaticin., Ὁ. xv. H. g. “ How beautiful 
upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth 
peace,” &¢c.—Isai. lii. 7. ‘‘ Behold upon the mountains the feet of him that bringeth 
good tidings, that publisheth peace!”—Nah.i. 15. Cf. also Isai. xlvii. 2, 3, with Nah. 
iii, 5 (see Jer. xiii. 22); Isai. li. 19, with Nah. 111. 7. So, too, Zeph. ii. 15, repeats 
almost word for word the expressions of Isai. xlvii. 8; and the words of Amos, ix. 13, 
are found again in Joel, iii. 18. The well-known relation between Isai. ii. 2-4, and 
Mich. iv. 1-3, cannot be passed over without notice; especially as the remarks of 
commentators upon it afford an interesting illustration of the controversy as to the 
source of the Gospels. Thus Hengstenberg (‘‘Christol.,” Th. 1. Abth. ii. s. 20) and 
Gesenius (*‘ Der Proph. Jesaias,” i. s. 177) consider that Micah was the first to utter 
this prediction, and that Isaiah made use of Micah’s language when recording his own 
vision in which the same revelation was conveyed. Abarbanel, on the contrary, held 
that Isaiah’s words were copied by Micah. Others again maintain that both prophets 
availed themselves of an earlier prediction, of which their writings now afford the 
only trace: see Gesenius loc. cit. 


300 THE COMMISSION TO WRITE, [LEcT, vn. 


diction, convey sundry particulars which are not touched upon 
by Jeremiah.’ 

Here, again, as I have observed with respect to the Gospels, 
the distinction between Revelation and Inspiration comes to our 
aid in explaining such phenomena. Historical tacts formed the 
basis of the evangelical narrative ; and, under the guidance of the 
Holy Spirit, those facts were worked up by each writer into his 
independent statement, which, accordingly, presents certain fea- 
tures of resemblance to the records of his fellow-laborers. In the 
prophetical books, on the other hand, the basis of the written 
document was the direct revelation presented to the intuitive 
faculty of each prophet.’ Such revelations, when once received, 
correspond to the facts in the case of historical narratives ;° and 
they, consequently, became, in like manner, the groundwork of 
the various prophetic announcements, which (under that same 
guid.ng influence of the Holy Ghost to which I have restricted 
the term Inspiration), have assumed the form of prediction, de- 
nunciation, didactic statement, or such like phases of Prophecy. 

This feature of the question will be brought out more fully 
by an example. If we compare the opening verses of the seventh 
chapter of the Book of Amos with the first and second chapters 
of the Book of Joel, it will at once appear that at the ground of 
each prophetic warning lies the same Vision of the desolation of 
the land by locusts.“ But observe how different is the treatment 

ει See Koppen, “ Die Bibel, ein Werk der gottl. Weisheit,” B. ii. 5. 115. In order 
to establish the fact in proof of which I have adduced this example,—viz., that the 
one prophecy was a development of the other,—it would be necessary to show that 
Obadiah wrote subsequently to Jeremiah: but this has been denied by other writers 
(e. g. by Hiivernick, “ Hinleit.,” loc. cit. s 319 ff). Zechariah’s prophecy of “ the 
Branch” (Zech. vi. 10-15), however, affords an incontestable illustration. ‘The title 
of ‘the Branch’ had been already consecrated in Prophecy to the Messiah. It is so 
given’ once by Isaiah [‘‘Isai. iv. 2. In xi. 1, a different, though equivalent word, is 
employed”|, twice by Jeremiah (xxiii.5; xxxiii, 15). * * * Zechariah’s pro- 
pheey is a revival of Jeremiah’s; he introduces it as of a person already known: 
‘Behold the Man whose name is the Branch.’ "—Davison, On Prophecy, pp. 320-323, 
See also the remarks of Hengstenberg (‘‘ Beitrage,” B. ii. 5. 48 ff.) on the manner in 
which Hosea develops the idea, so often repeated in the Pentateuch, according to 
which the relation of Jehovah to Israel is symbolized by the relation of marriage; 
and idolatry denounced under the image of whoredom. E. g. “I will set my face 
against that man * * * and all that goa whoring after him to commit whoredom 
with Moloch,” &e.,—Ley. xx. 5. Cf. ch. xix. 29; Numb. xiv. 33, &c., ἄρ. Observe, 
joo, how Hosea’s prophecy opens with a literal repetition of the promises contained 
in Gen. xxii. 17; xxxii. 12: ‘‘ Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be ag 
the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered”’—Hos. i. 10; the spiz- 
itual import of which allusion is still further explained by 8. Paul, Rom. ix, 26. 


? See supra, Lecture iv. p. 162, &e. 5 See supra, Lecture iv. p. 146, &e. 
“ “Thus hath the Lord God showed unto me; and behold he formed grass- 


LECT ὙΠ. THE FORM OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN. 301 


of this theme in the two cases.. While Amos confines himself 
to a simple record of the Vision, Joel has given an elaborate de- 
scription of its details ; employing the imagery and style peculiar 
to his writings, in which his conception of the future and his al- 
lusions to the present are combined with threats and exhorta- 
tions. Each prophet, we can scarcely doubt, had received the 
same revelation ; but see how differently each, under the guid- 
ance of the Holy Spirit, has applied the Divine communication.’ 

II. I turn, in the second place, to the quotations from the 
Old Testament which meet us in the New.’ Certain aspects of this 
subject have been already touched upon, not only when it was ar- 
gued, from the nature of such quotations, that the Old and New 
Testaments are both portions of one organized whole,—every sec- 
tion of each subserving the accomplishment of the Divine Coun- 
sels ;* but also, as in the last Discourse, where it was shown how 
the New Testament writers, as well as our Lord Himself, ascribe 


hoppers in the beginning of the shooting up of the latter growth. * * * And it 
came to pass, that when they had made an end of eating the grass of the land, ‘hen 
I said,” &e.—Amos, vii. 1, 2. 

1 The assertion that the same Vision was the germ of each prophetic announce- 
ment, does not, of course, imply that the perceptions offered to the spiritual sense of 
Amos were presented under as fully-deveioped a form as the revelation to Joel. As 
O. Strauss observes, Joel ‘universe Prophetie brevem quodammodo exhibet con- 
spectum * * * Amos hostium zon immensas omnino catervas vidit, sicuti Joel ; 
verum certam populi speciem, longe remoti cujusdam et ferocissimi, cujus tamen nomen 
ignorat (cf. Amos, vi. 14; v. 27).”—loc. cit. p. Ixvii. See also Havernick, loc. cit., 5. 43, 
wu. 295. . 

2 The following remarks will fitly introduce this subject :—‘In the freedom of the 
Spirit of Truth, the question is not whether Divine sayings already promulgated have 
been quoted with rigid adherence to their mere letier, but whether they have been 
given anew, true to their spirit: a repetition which, under different circumstances, 
takes a direction, towards their spiritual end, both new, and withal appropriate; in 
which, moreover, the original import is not falsified, and suited to error or prejudice, 
but, in the sense of its Author, the Spirit, is now developed further and more pro- 
foundly—is defined more nearly, and adapted to the new requirements of Truth, to 
the meaning which is spiritual and not carnal, to the requirements of Divine and not 
of worldly progress. * * * Such is the manner in which the Holy Ghost, at 
every higher stage of His communications, acts with respect to what has been already 
given within the limits of a lower or preparatory stage of Revelation. Such things 
as could not, as yet, be there expressed, and were still veiled under figure or symbol, 
are, at a later period, proclaimed without reserve from the house tops. According te 
shis principle are to be estimated the quotations and expositions of the Old Testament 
sayings, and narratives in the Apostolic writings :—matters which, when handled by 
men unconsecrated, and endowed with merely human cultivation, are lost in frivo- 
lous allegory, as in the expositions of Philo. Such expositions, when proceeding from 
the Spirit, the authentic Author and Expounder of His own work, become a higher 
and more profound development of Truth:—that which, were it combined, from a 
purely human stand-point, out of doctrine and history, would be fiction or conjecture, 
becomes, in the Divine Author’s own representation, an infusion of life, and the com: 
pletion of His design."—Beck, Propdd. Entwickl., 8. 242. 

3 See Lecture i. p. 26, &c.; and Lecture iii. Cf Appendix B. 


302 THE COMMISSION TO WRITE. [LECT. VI. 


the Old Testament to the immediate agency of the Holy Ghost. 
On these occasions I confined myself either to an examination of 
the manner in which such passages from the former Scriptures 
are introduced, or to the general points of connexion between the 
sacred writings which they exhibit : it still remains to consider 
the form and substance of the quotations themselves. The im- 
portance of this subject arises from the fact that the two divis- 
ions of the Bible are composed in different languages ; combined 
with the parallel fact that, at the period when the New Testa- 
ment was written,’ there had already existed, for a considerable 
time, a translation of the Old Testament into Greek, which, al- 
though of great value, is not inspired,’ but of which the writers 
of the New Testament have confessedly availed themselves. This 
fact at once presents a kind of experimentum crucis of every 
theory of Inspiration. Not to dwell upon the extravagant opin- 


1 See the valuable discussion of Hug (“ Einleit.,” Th. 1. cap. i. § 10) as to the 
language of Palestine in the Apostolic age. Too great importance, he observes, “ is 
attached to the fact that Jesus is represented as speaking in Hebrew (Mark, v. 41— 
Ταλιθὰ κοῦμι; vii. 84--᾿᾽᾿Εφφαθώ ; and Matt. xxvii. 46; Mark, xv. 34). It might be 
replied that the Hebrew words in these passages are quoted by the Evangelists as 
something remarkable, which would not have been the case had Jesus for the most 
part spoken in Hebrew ; and what could reasonably be objected to this answer? We 
will not, however, dismiss the matter so hastily. The Lord may have adddressed 
the Jewish multitude in their own language, on account of their predilection for it. 
But how did He address a mixed assembly collected from different regions and cities ? 
How did He speak to proselytes and pagans, as at Gadaris (Matt. viii. 28, &c., Mark, 
v. 1; Luke, viii. 26)? How in the district of Tyre and Sidon (Mark, vii. 24, &c.), 
where the Syrophenician Greek woman (yuv7 ‘EAAnvic Συροφοινίκισσα) entered into 
conversation with Him? How in Decapolis, which consisted of Greek cities, such 
as Philadelphia, Gerasa, Gadara, Hippos, and Pella?”—=s. 46. 

* I do not consider it necessary to discuss the question as to the inspiration of the 
LXX. The fabulous character of the narrative of Aristeas, to a belief in the truth of 
which that notion chiefly owes its currency, has been sufliciently exposed by Hody, 
in his well-known work, ‘‘ De Bibliorum Text. Originalibus.” 

3 Tholuck (“Das A. Test. im N. Test,” s. 7) quotes a remark of Billroth on 1 Cor. 
i, 19,—where S. Paul does not adhere literally to either the Hebrew or the LXX ,— 
which forcibly expresses the alternative in this question: ‘“‘ According to his wont, 
the Apostle quotes, in proof, passages of the Old Testament which certainly do not 
always suit in a strictly historical sense (i. e. so that the respective authors had meant 
what Paul means in the connexion in which he quotes them), but which, however, 
so far as regards the words, imply what they are applied to. In order not to accuse 
Paul (as well as the other writers of the New Testament—nay, Christ lumselt) of 
either ignorance, or even perhaps dishonesty in this point, we must firmly maintain 
the principle according to which the Old Testament, taken collectively, is a type of 
the New :—so that the predictions of the prophets (e. g. those relating to the Messiah) 
are not to be understood as if the writers had consciously referred to the historical 
Christ, who was born under the reign of Augustus (every child perceives that this 
is not the case, and the fact is one which writers need not make so much of), but so 
that, in the words which they utter, that same Divine Spirit expresses Itself, which 
srganically penetrates the entire history, and which, consequently, has also appeared 
in Christianity.” 


LECT. VII.] THE FORM OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN. 303 


ion that the Apostles have often misunderstood’ or misquoted 
the Hebrew Scriptures, it is held by an extensive class of modern 
commentators that the authors of the New Testament, when 
making use of the Septuagint Version, continually “‘ quote from 
memory.”’ This assertion can only mean, that the passages ad- 
duced by the inspired writers are not cited with as much ac- 
curacy, or correctness, as might have been attained had they 
been at the pains to consult the source from which they have 
borrowed the form of their quotations. Nay more, such a prin- 
ciple would undoubtedly lend some color to the statement,— 
which, as we shall presently see, has actually been advanced,—- 


! Tn the “Studien ἃ. Kritiken” for 1835 a writer of considerable repute, Dr. Bleek, 
in an essay on “ The dogmatic use of Old Testament sayings in the New,” proposes 
the following question:—‘“ If an Old Testament saying is employed in the New Tes- 
tament, in such a manner that we cannot question the fact that the New Testament 
writer has referred it to the Messiah,—and this, too, not by way of mere application ; 
while, at the same time, his use of it does not throughout belong strictly to the orig- 
inal sense and original reference,—is, then, such a use of the passage binding upon 
us; and arule of itself sufficient to determine us to understand, in the same sense, 
the Old Testament saying ?”—s. 443. This question, in all its generality, Dr. Bleek 
answers in the negative,—adding that he has “on his side the majority of German 
theologians of the present age,”—on the ground that we cannot imagine the language 
of the Old Testament to have any other meaning than that which the Old Testament 
writer himself perceived in it. Thus in the case of the second Psalm, which is ap- 
plied so frequently to the Messiah in the New Testament (e. g. Acts, iv. 25, 26; xiii. 
33; Heb. i. 2; v.5; Rev. ii. 27; xii 5; xix. 15), Dr. Bleek considers that there is 
not the slightest intimation that any other time or person was intended than the 
time when the Psalmist wrote, and the king then ‘anointed on Zion” (s. 456). To 
suppose “that the Holy Spirit so guided the Psalmist in his poetry and his compo- 
sition, that his words present a second more remote and higher reference extending 
beyond this émmediate sense, and of which he himself was unconscious, or at least, 
not clearly conscious,” would be to assume an inspiration by the Holy Ghost of such 
a nature as Dr. Bleek is not disposed to concede (8. 458). (In reply to this principle, 
which assumes that the human agents were the sole and proper authors of the 
Bible, see what has been already said, Lecture v. p. 189, ὅθ.) The use of the Old 
Testament in the New (chiefly by 8. Matthew and 8. John), Dr. Bleek describes as 
resulting from an “earlier exegetical tradition of the Jewish schools; an exegesis, 
too, which we are not “justified in regarding as founded upon perfectly just prin- 
ciples, or as treated in a perfectly correct manner.”—s,. 447. Such Jewish views, he 
adds, we cannot but expect to have had their influence on the New Testament 
writers; who accordingly have understood sundry texts of the Old Testament “in 
a sense which would not be received as either correct or accurate had they attained 
to a greater perfection of exegetical science and skill.”—s. 448. 

? KE. g. Olshausen (see infra, p. 323, note *); Bleek; Mr. Alford (who writes on 
S. Matt. xxvii. 9: “The citation is not from Jeremiah, and is probably quoted from 
memory, and inaccurately [but see infra, p. 308, note’); we have similar mistakes in 
two places in the apology of Stephen, Acts, vii. 4, 16, and in Mark, ii. 26. * * * 
The quotation here is very different from the LXX., and not much more like the 
Hebrew ;” cf. also his netes on Rom. xi. 34; and 2 Cor. vi. 17); Tholuck (who ob- 
serves: ‘In very many, nay in most cases, in consequence of quoting from memory 
the passage, so far as the words are concerned, is altered sometimes to such an extent 
that the deviation, as is the case in 1 Cor. ii. 9 (Hph. v. 14) [but see infra, p. 307, 
note 53], has even caused the supposition that the citation belongs to some apocryphal 
book.’—Das A, Test. im N. Test., 8. 39.) 


304 THE COMMISSION TO WRITE. [LECT. VIL 


that, in consequence of thus citing the Greek translation from 
memory, the Apostles may, at times, although undesignedly, 
have missed the sense of the original. Such a doctrine, if capa- 
ble of proof, is obviously fatal to that view of the inspiration of 
Scripture which I have endeavored to maintain ; according to 
which each and every portion of the Bible is perfect and Divine. 
On the other hand, if this latter inference be legitimate, any 
opinion which ascribes to the form in which the Old Testament 
is quoted a less degree of perfection than might have been se- 
cured by a somewhat greater amount of diligence or care on the 
part of those New Testament writers who adduce it must be 
radically and essentially unsound ; and to establish this con- 
clusion must now be my task. 

The references to the Old Testament which meet us in the 
New may be arranged under two classes.’ The first embraces 
those passages which are strictly prophetical ; and of this class 
the following subdivisions present themselves :—(1.) Those texts 
which refer almost exclusively to the Messiah’s Personal history 
or Character ; and in which the principle of pointing to Him as 
their end is clearly intimated :—such texts being brought for- 
ward, not as mere illustrations, or by way of adaptation to the 
events of His life, but as requiring an actual fulfilment in an 
actual fact. Predictions of this kind are referred to with the 
words, “‘ That the Scripture might be fulfilled ;” or, “ Now all 
this was done that it might be fulfilled ;’” or, “ Then was ful- 
filled that which was spoken by the prophet :”* the New Testa- 


‘ Tn the following discussion I avail myself of the excellent remarks of Rudel- 
bach in his “ Zeitschrift” for 1842, H. ii. 5, 42 ff. 

2 Ἴνα, or ὅπως πληρωθῆ.----Θ. g. “I know whom I have chosen: but that the Scrip- 
ture may be fulfilled (ἀλλ᾽ iva 7 γραφὴ πληρωθῇ,) He that eateth bread with Me,” 
&e.—S. John, xiii. 18; or ‘Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled (iva 
πληρωθῇ) which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold a Virgin 
shall be with child,” &c.—S. Matt. i. 22, 23. Again: “ Without a parable spake He 
not unto them; that it might be fulfilled (ὅπως πληρωθῇ) which was spoken by the 
prophet, saying, I will open My mouth in parables,” &c.—S. Matt. xiii. 34, 35 
“The signification of the oft-recurring phrase, iva πληρωθῇ, as involving a real con- 
nexion between Prophecy and its fulfilment, is no longer questioned by the more ju- 
dicious expositors. The fact that Grammar itself, against the will of those who handla 
it, is compelled to give at least formal testimony to the Faith, is not to be overlooked 
as an apologetic element of the Christian Evidences; and indeed it has never, when 
the oceasion offered, been overlooked by the Ancients. The sense, however, of that 
formula (cf. 6. g. in the first Gospel, S. Matt. 11.15; vill. 17; xii. 17; xiii 35 ; xxi. 4; 
xxvi. 56; xxvii. 35) is plainly nothing else than what lies in the expression itself, 
viz., that the fulfilment has taken place in order to display the truth of Propheey.”— 
Budelbach, Zettschr., 1840. H. i. 5. 3. 

* “Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet fore 


LECT. ὙΠ. THE FORM OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN. 305 


ment writers thereby declaring that God had pre-ordained that 
the prophet’s announcement should receive its true accomplish- 
ment in the single fact to which it is thus applied. (2.) To this 
subdivision may be added those which are in the strictest sense 
typical predictions :—that is, where the words or symbols of the 
Old Testament are adduced as having conveyed, from the first, 
an allusion to the particular fact or event in which they are 
stated to have been now at length realized ; and respecting the 
true signification of which the fulfilment alone could have given 
certainty.’ Although the reference is made under the form of 
an involved type, its substance is always prophetical, as we learn 
from tke use, here also, of the phrase, “‘ That it might be ful- 
filled which was spoken by the prophet,” or such like expressions. 
Of this nature was the mention by 8. John of the ceremonies 
connected with the Paschal Lamb, which he represents as being 
at length truly exhibited in the Sacrifice upon the Cross : “‘ These 
things were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled, A bone 
of Him shall not be broken.” (8.) There are also those passages 


ἐπληρώθη τὸ ῥηθὲν did ‘Tep.), saying, In Rama was there a voice heard,” &¢.—S. 
Matt. ii. 17. 

? See supra, Lecture v. p. 200, note 7, where I have differed from Rudelbach 
(“Zeitschr.,” 1842. H. ii. s. 38) in regarding the relation of Types to Prophecy as 
more intimate than he is disposed to admit. In accordance with his views, instead 
of referring such quotations in the New Testament to the class of strictly prophetical 
passages, Rudelbach regards the “vaticinia typica,” there adduced by the sacred 
writers, as forming a distinct class. 

2 "Eyéveto yap ταῦτα iva 4 γραφὴ πληρωθῇ---. John, xix. 36; and in the same 
sense another Apostle writes: ‘‘Ye were not redeemed with corruptible things 
* * # ut with the precious blood of Christ, as of a Lamb without blemish.”—1 
S. Pet. i. 18, 19 (cf also ver. 2); S. John, i.29; 1 Cor. v. 7; ἄς. Quite similar is S. 
Matthew’s allusion, in his account of the rending of the Vail of the Temple (xxvii. 
51); on which feature of the Tabernacle S. Paul dwells with such particularity (Heb. 
ix. 3, 11, 12; x. 20). The following instances may be added: Joseph arose and 
“took the Young Child and His Mother by night, and departed into Egypt, that it 
might be fulfilled (ἕνα πληρωθῇ) which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, say- 
ing, Out of Egypt have I called My Son”—S. Matt. ii. 14, 15; for the sense of which 
typical prediction see supra, Lecture iii. p. 109, note *. Still more forcibly illustrative 
of this class of typical predictions is the manner in which the New Testament teaches 
that the entire course of Jewish history, and not the Exodus merely, pointed to 
Christ. This we learn from the reference to Ps. lxxviii., by both 8. Paul and S. 
Matthew: the former declaring that ‘these things were our examples,” or rather 
“types” —Taita δὲ τύποι ἡμῶν ἐγενήθησαν---Ἰ Cor, x. 6; and the latter quoting its 
words with the formula, “ That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet.” 
—xiii. 35. On the use of this Psalm see also supra, Lecture iv. p. 151, note. Cf, too, 
the well-known difficulty connected with the words, “ He came and dwelt in a city 
called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled (ὅπως πληρ.) which was spoken by the pro- 
ohets, He shall be called a Nazarene.”—S. Matt. ii. 23: where, as Olshausen (“‘ Hin 
Wort wb. tief. Schriftsinn,” 8. 64) conjectures, the Evangelist may refer to the saying 
of Jacob that Joseph “ was separate from his brethren (Ὃν 713)—Gen, xlix. 26 (ef. 
Num. vi. 1-22); considering Josep as a type of the Messiah,—a character already 


20 


306 THE COMMISSION TO WRITE. [LECT. VIL 


which are quoted so that their direct reference to a particular 
person or event cannot be questioned. Thus Isaiah’s prediction 
that 8. John the Baptist should appear in the character of the 
Messiah’s forerunner is introduced by 8. Matthew with the words : 
“This is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias.”* (4.) The 
last subdivision embraces those texts which are cited so that the 
causative particle connects the Messianic fact with the prediction, 
—thus assuring us, in the way of inference, that such was the 
end at which the prophet’s language aimed. For example, 8S. 
Peter explains how ‘it was impossible” that Jesus of Nazareth 
“should be holden of” death, “ For David speaketh concerning 
him” the prophecy which has been handed down as the sixteenth 
Psalm.’ 

As forming the second class of quotations are to be counted 
those passages in which the language of the Old Testament is in- 
corporated with the body of Christian doctrine ; and in which the 
prophets are represented in the same light as the men who di- 
rectly announced the New Covenant. In such instances we have 
a practical illustration of Christ’s saying that heaven and earth 
should disappear rather than “ one jot or one tittle pass from the 
Law till all be fulfilled.” In this case the language of the 
former Scriptures is sometimes introduced without an express 
reference :—as in the first Epistle of 8. Peter, where passages 
from Isaiah and Ezekiel are embodied in the Apostle’s argument, 


implied in the name “Saviour of the World” (“Zaphnath Paaneah”) assigned to him 
hy Pharaoh (Gen. xli. 45). It is clear that Ναζαρέτ (whence Naswpaivc—the despised 
me) cannot, aS many writers hold, be derived from are branch (Isai. Xi. 1); since 
¢ invariably corresponds to 1, not ‘. (E. g. in S. Matt. i.; S. Luke, iii. "Αχαζ = tnx, 
Ζοροβάβελ == 52371, &e.: while Σιεδών = TY, Σιών --- IPS.) Cf. the employment by 
Christ Himself of the type of Jonah: “Ὥσπερ yap ἦν ᾿Ιωνᾶς ἐν τῇ κοιλία ὃ ἕ 
οὕτως ἔσται ὁ Ὑἱὸς τοῦ ’AvOp. κ. τ. \.—S. Matt. xii. 40; as well as that of the vipers 
serpent,” Καθὼς Μωῦσῆς ὕψωσεν τὸν ὄφιν, οὕτως ὑψωθῆναι δεῖ τὸν Yidv τοῦ ᾽Ανθρ. 
—S. John, iii. 14; which latter exposition teaches us how fully our Lord has adopted 
the typical mode interpretation. 

 S. Matt. iii. 3; Isai. xl. 3. The purchase of “ the potter’s field” with “ the price 
of blood,” is described as follows: “Then was fulfilled (τότε ἐπληρώθη) that which 
was spoken,” &c.—S. Matt. xxvii. 9. So also S. Peter explains as the fulfilment of 
the words of Joel, ii. 28, 29, the events on “the Day of Pentecost” (Acts, ii. 16)— 
ἀλλὰ τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ εἰρημένον διὰ τοῦ προφήτου ᾿Ἰωήλ. 

3. Acts, ii, 24, 2ὅ---οὐκ ἦν δυνατὸν κρατεῖσθαι Αὐτὸν * * * Δαυὶδ γὰρ λέγει. 
“TA. Or agair.: “ Therefore they could not believe, because that Hsaias said again,” 
ὅς. (ὅτι πάλιν εἶπεν ‘Ho.).—S. John, xii 59. Or: “For i is written in the Book 
of Psalms (Γέγραπται γὰρ ἐν βίβλῳ wad.) * * * his bishopric let another take. 
Wherefore (ὃ εἴ οὗ νὴ) of these men which have companied, &c. * * * must one 
de ordained,” &c.—Acts, i. 20-22. Of. Eph. iv. 8—Avd λέγει. 

3 See supra Lecture iii. p. 104, &c. 


LECT. VII.] THE FORM OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN. 307 


unaccompanied by any observation denoting the sources from 
which they were taken.’ On the other hand, the reference to the 
Old Testament is sometimes plainly expressed.” Again: a state- 
ment of some former inspired writer is employed in such a man- 
ner as to connect the prediction which it conveys, with a series of 
historical facts :—those facts indicating, on some occasions, that 
the accomplishment of the prediction had commenced (thus 8. 
Matthew adduces Isaiah’s language, which describes the suffer- 
ings of the Messiah, as beginning to receive its fulfilment in 
Christ’s miracles of healing : ‘‘ Himself took our infirmities, and 
bare our sicknessess”) ;* or at other times signifying the continu- 
ous accomplishment of the prophetic declaration (as when 8. 
Paul interprets the nineteenth Psalm as having foreshadowed 
the permanent preaching of the Gospel: “‘ Their sound went 
into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.”) 

Under this class comes also a series of references by which the 
writers of the New Testament exemplify, in the plainest man- 
ner, their belief in the inspiration of the Old Testament ; and 
from which it obviously results that each portion of Scripture 


1 “Who His own Self bare our sins in his own Body onthe tree * * ¥* by 
Whose stripes ye were healed (Isai. lili. 4, 5). For ye were as sheep going astray 
(οι. xxxiv. 11, 12); but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your 
souls (Ezek. xxxvii. 24),”—18. Pet. ii. 24, 25. Cf also ch. i. 24, 25: “ All flesh is as 
grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth * * * 
but the word of the Lord endureth for ever,’—words which are incorporated in the 
Apostle’s exhortation from Isai. xl. 6-8. This mode of employing the Old Testament, 
as Rudelbach observes, “is a surety to us that, in the judgment of the Apostle, there 
lies in its language a ῥῆμα Θεοῦ, μένον εἰς τὸν aidva.”—loc. cit., 8. 47. Such also is the 
mode of referring to Hab. ii. 4, ‘The just shall live by his faith”—in Gal. iii. 11; and 
Hebr. x. 38. 

* K. g. “ Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves * * * for it is written (γέ- 
ypatrat yup), Vengeance is Mine,” &c.—Rom. xii. 19. Again: “That, according as 
it is written (καθὼς γέγραπται), He that glorieth,” &c.—1 Cor. i. 31. Cf Acts, xiii. 
40. A still more striking instance is supplied by the passage: ‘‘ Wherefore he saith, 
Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light” 
—Eph. v. 14—a passage which is not to be found in express words in either the 
Hebrew or the LXX.; while the formula διὸ λέγει (as Olshausen, B. iv. 5. 270, traly 
says) points infallibly to a quotation from Scripture. 3. Paul here clearly refers to 
Isai. Lx, 1. 

3 “He cast out the spirits with His word, and healed all that were sick. That 
it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet [liii. 4], saying, Himself 
took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.”—S. Matt. viii. 16, 17. So also ch. iv 
14, 15, the first dawn of the Gospel and the future conversion of the Heathen, when 
“the people which sat in darkness saw great light”—is inferred from Isai. ix. 1, 2, 
with the formula of citation, iva πληρωθῇ :—the Evangelist adding, “ From that time 
Jesus began to preach.”—ver. 17. 

*.Rom. x.* 18. Compare, too, the reference, in ver. 8, to Deut. xxx. 12-14, 
From Heb. viii. 8-13, we learn that the days of the Gospel afford the never-ceasing 
accomplishment of Jer. xxxi, 31-34. 


308 THE COMMISSION TO WRITE, [LECT. VIL 


must be regarded as part of one Divine whole :—I mean the sys- 
tem of collective quotations, where a number of passages are 
brought together, in the same connexion, from various books of 
the Bible, in order to establish some one point of Christian doc- 
trine.’ Of this, the Epistle to the Hebrews affords many in- 
stances :* but the most striking example is, perhaps, supplied by 
the passage commencing at the tenth verse of the third chapter 
of the Epistle to the Romans, where five different texts from the 
Psalms are combined in the same quotation with a text from 
Isaiah :—the whole series commencing with the formula “ As it 
is written.”* It is plain that in these collective quotations the 


? This fact affords a satisfactory reply to the opening observations of Mr. Cole- 
ridge in the passage quoted sxpra, Lecture ii. p. 53, note *. Had the Bible not been 
generically different from ‘all other writings,” such a “practice” would be indeed 
“unexampled.” 

* In Heb. i, 5-13, the exaltation of Christ above all creatures and angels is in- 
ferred from Ps. ii. 7; 2 Sam. vii. 14; Ps. xevii. 7; xlv. 6, 7; cii. 25-27. In ch. ii. θ- 
8, 12, 13, the true human nature of Christ is inferred from Ps, viii, 4-6; xxii. 22; 
xviii. 2. In ch, iv. 4-10, the ‘Rest of the people of God’ is shown to have been pre- 
dicted in Gen. ii. 2; Ps. χον. 7-9. ‘‘No more instructive codex of prophetical the- 
ology could be presented to us than in these highly fruitful quotations.”—Rudelbach, 
loc. cit., 8. 48. 

3 Καθὼς yéypaxtai—Rom. iii. 10-18,—where the following passages are com: 
bined Ps. Ππ- dle sve Oh ὉΧΙ arise ip ΞΕ. lien Or ἘΒ ΣΧ ΧΝ Sem SOraSOME Br ΟΤΗΝ 
x. 19, 20. with reference to the obstinacy of Israel and the call of the Gentiles, we 
find Deut. xxxii. 21, and Isai. Ixv. 1, 2, united. Of in Rom. xi. 8-10, the quotations 
from Isai. xxix. 10; Deut. xxix. 4; Ps. lxix. 22, 23: where also (Rom. ix. 33), Isai. 
viii. 14, is combined with Isai. xxviii. 16;—the same combination occurring in 1 S. 
Pet. ii. 6-8, with the addition of a further quotation from Ps. exviii. 22 (cf S. Matt. 
xxi. 42, &.). In the same manner 2 Cor. vi. 16, is composed of Lev. xxvi. 12, and 
Ezek, xxxvii. 26, 27; while in ver. 17, to the quotation from Isai. 111. 11, there is 
added an expression (εἰσδέξομαι ἡμᾶς) from Ezek. xx. 34, which briefly sums up the 
promise of Isai. liii 12:—ver. 18 being taken from Jer. xxxi. 1-9, 33; xxxii. 38. 
Again, the words of 8. Stephen (Acts, vii. 7), “‘and serve me in this place,” are not 
found in either the Hebrew or LXX. of Gen. xv. 14. They are taken from God’s 
words, Exod. iii. 12:—the combination of the two passages pointing out the con- 
nexion of the different parts of the Divine Scheme. ‘The following examples of this 
procedure require some remarks: In S. Mark, i: 2—where the reading adopted in the 
English Version, “ As it is written in the prophets” (ἐν τοῖς προφήταις), is certainly in- 
correct ; and where we should read “in Isaiah the prophet” (ἐν Ησαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ), 
—we find the language of Mal. iii. 1, combined with that of Isai. xl. 3. It is obvious 
that the words of Malachi, “he shall prepare the [a] way before Me” are based upon 
the expression of Isaiah—“ Prepare ye the [a] way of the Lord:” and that this is 
not a mere undesigned coincidence on the part of the later prophet is proved by 
Malachi (iii. 2; iv. 5) having similarly incorporated in his own statements the lan- 
guage of another and earlier servant of God, viz., Joel, ii. 11, and 31. The design of 
Malachi here was to show the Jews who had returned from the Exile, and whose 
temporal condition seemed to present a contradiction to the promised glories of Mes- 
siah’s reign, that Isaiah himself had already foretold that the evangelical promises 
were not as yet at hand; and that ‘the preparation of the way” must precede 
Messiah’s glory. The passage quoted by S. Mark from Malachi, therefore, is not an 
independent prediction. Malachi is merely the auctor secundarius ; and the Evangelist 
points out that this is the case by ascribing both commentary and text to Isaiah, 
wliom he thus represents as the auctor primarius,—the commentary being placed 





LECT. VII.] THE FORM OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN. 309 


Apostles adduce the several passages as all denoting, and from 
the first pointing to, one great truth ;—although separately, in 
their primary connexion, such statements of the Old Testament 
had often merely a reference to more special relations. 

This review of what are plain matters of fact of itself brings 
to light the principle which guided the sacred writers, under the 
Gospel Dispensation, in the use which they have made of the Old 
Testament. The Holy Spirit, when inspiring God’s servants in 
former times, had infused a deeper significance into their words 
than the men who uttered them, or who committed them to writ- 
ing, perceived.’ The depth of meaning conveyed could only be 
apprehended, in the fulness of time, by those who, like the 
authors of the New Testament, “ had the mind of Christ ;’” and 
who were thereby enabled to unfold the hidden mystery couched 
under the earlier form.* Consider how Christ Himself has exem- 


first, as it serves to elucidate the text. §. Mark’s exordium, ‘‘ The beginning of the 
Gospel,” also shows that he had in view the closing book of the Old Testament. 
That in S. Matt. 11]. 1-4, these words of Isaiah are in like manner quoted with refer- 
ence to Malachi is clear from the use of weravoeitre—ver, 2, compared with Mal. iv. 5, 
6, where “ Elijah the prophet” is described as the preacher of μετάνοια. See Heng- 
stenberg, ‘‘Christol.,” Β. iii. 5. 398. On the principle here laid down, Hengstenberg 
(B. ii. s. 259) explains why 8. Matthew (xxvii. 9) has ascribed to Jeremiah the words of 
Zechariah (xi. 13):—the Evangelist desiring to explain that Jeremiah was to be re- 
garded as the auctor primarius of a prediction with which his readers were well ac- 
quainted, and to whose words (Jer. xviii. 1-3; xix. 2) the expression of Zechariah, 
‘And the Lord said unto me, Cast it wnto the potter,” refers us; Jeremiah standing to 
Zechariah in the same relation as Ezekiel and Daniel to the Apocalypse. Nor is the 
reference in such cases to a single prophet unusual. The quotation, “That it might 
be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold thy 
king cometh unto thee, meek,” &c., in S. Matt. xxi. 4, 5, is taken from Isai. lxii, 11, 
and Zech. ix. 9; on which Bengel observes: ‘ Hic locus exemplo est multos sermo- 
nes apud prophetas accipi debere, non solum ut ab illis dictos sed ut ab Apostolis 
dicendos.” Cf. too, our Lord’s words, 8. Matt. xxiv. 30, with Dan. vii. 13; Zech. xii. 
10-12. This combination of different passages meets us even in the Old Testament. 
Thus Nahum, in the words, ‘ For now I will break his yoke from off thee, and will 
burst thy bonds in sunder.”—i. 13, alludes to the expressions of Isai. x. 27 in language 
differing from them in some respects (e. g. 70172); both statements being combined in 
Jer, xxx. 8. See O. Strauss, loc. cit., p. 40. 

* See supra, Lecture v. p. 189, &e. 

* “Who hath known the mind of the Lord (νοῦν Κυρίου) * * * But we 
have the mind of Christ” (ἡμεῖς δὲ νοῦν Χριστοῦ éyouev).—1 Cor. ii. 16. 

5. Rudelbach (following Olshausen) has truly observed that “a ὑπόνοια----ὃ, deeper 
sense, intended by the Holy Ghost,—must be allowed, in the interpretation of Scrip- 
ture, by all who have a clear apprehension of the objectivity of the Holy Spirit’s in- 
fluence upon the prophets.”—Zeitschrift, 1842, H. ii. s. 34. Olshausen (“Hin Wort 
ub. tief. Schriftsinn,” s. 70) establishes the justice of this principle by an appeal to the 
plain statements of the sacred writers. In this sense S. Paul expounds the history of 
Hagar and Ishmael (see supra, Lecture iii. p. 109),—“ which things,” writes the Apos- 
tle, “are an Allegory” (ἅτινά ἐστιν dAAnHyopotmeva)—Gal. iv. 24. So also 8. 
John writes: “Their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spir- 
vually ts called (ἥτις καλεῖται πνευματικῶς) Sodom and Egypt.’—Rey, xi. 8. Cf 
Rom. ix. 7, 8; 2 Cor. ili. 13, &e.; Ep . v. 32, ἄορ. The classical phrase ὑπύνοια is ad- 


310 THE CCMMISSION TO WRITE. [LECT. vin. 


plified this principle :—His saying, ‘‘ Blessed are the meek, for 
they shall inherit the earth,” exhibits the spiritual sense of that 
inheritance of the promised land which so constantly forms the 
theme of Old Testament Prophecy ; and in which Canaan, the 
terrestrial object of the Divine promises, symbolizes every Divine 
blessing. The argument founded upon these same promises in 
the Epistle to the Hebrews’ clearly shows how this idea pervades 
the entire organism of the Bible, and how it implies the realiza- 
tion of the Kingdom of God even in its earthly form. 

But while the authors of the New Testament, by their full 
appreciation of the deeper meaning conveyed in the words of ear- 
lier sacred writers, show how widely they differ from that class 
of expositors who see no further intent in the langnage of In- 
spiration than its naked, literal signification ; they are, at the 
same time, as widely opposed to that other class which fixes its 
exclusive attention upon the allegorical or mystical sense of Scrip- 
ture.’ From this latter school the inspired penmen are severed 
by broad lines of distinction. In the first place, they assert un- 
conditionally the literal signification and historical reality of every 
narrative in the Bible ; insisting, nevertheless, upon the spiritual 


mirably suited to express the truth which such texts convey: inasmuch as it implies 
that under the obvious signification of the words there lies, not indeed a different, but 
the same signification again, more profoundly apprehended. See also supra, Lecture 
iv. p. 153, note *. 

? 8. Matt. v. ὅ---κληρονομήσουσιν τὴν γῆν. Of. “I will give unto thee, and to thy 
seed * * * all the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession.’—Gen. xvii. 8. 
“Sic ergo et promissio Dei, quam promisit Abrahe, firma perseverat * * * Ree 
promisit autem Deus heereditatem terree Abrahze et semini ejus: et neque Abraham, 
neque semen ejus, hoc est, qui ex fide justificantur, nune sumunt in ea hereditatem: 
accipient autem eam in resurrectione justorum. Verus enim et firmus Deus:’ et prop- 
ter hoc ‘beatos’ dicebat ‘mites, quoniam ipsi heereditabunt terram.’ ”—S. Irenzeus, 
Cont. Her., lib. v. Xxxii. p. 331. See Olshausen én loc. 

? “Seeing, therefore, it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom 
it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief: again He limiteth a certain 
day, saying in David, To-day, &c. There remaineth, therefore, a rest to the people of 
God.”—Heb. iv. 6-9. In a similar manner Christ has pointed out the spiritual signi- 
fication of the Mosaic rites, by referring the ordinance that all sacrifices must be 
sprinkled with salt (Lev. ii. 13) to the spiritual sprinkling of the soul with the salt of 
suffering and self-denial; ‘“ Every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice 
shall be salted with salt. Salt is good; but if the salt have lost his saltness, where- 
with will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another.” 
—S. Mark, ix, 49, 50. 

5. Two celebrated names in the early Church may be taken as representing these 
extreme opinions, Origen, and Theodore of Mopsuestia, the leaders of the schools of 
Alexandria and Antioch, Assuming alike the Divine origin and inspiration of the 
Bible, these teachers founded their systems of exposition cn principles diametrically 
opposed; and which, moreover, are equally removed from that line of interpretation 
which Scripture itself has suggested. For some remarks on these wo opposing sys- 
tems, see Appendix ἃ. a 


LECT. Vil.| THE FORM OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN. 311 


and heavenly import which underlies the earthly record. Sec- 
ondly, their use of the Old Testament unfolds what the passage 
to be interpreted, taken in strict connexion with its context, 
actually does mean ; in no instance exhibiting the capricious and 
arbitrary subtlety of allegorical expositors—their unnatural ap- 
plications, or overstrained ingenuity. And, thirdly, their expo- 
sitions invariably refer to the grand design of promoting the 
moral welfare of man. They do not strive to point out how far 
the sense of scriptural expressions may actually extend ; they con- 
tent themselves with indicating what shall profit those whom 
they address... Thus 8. Paul, when expounding the spiritual 
significance of the Legal ceremonial, refuses to dwell upon the 
mysteries of the Cherubim.’ 

Having thus pointed out the principle on which the sacred 
writers themselves have treated the language of Scripture ; and 
having shown how, in pursuance of that principle, their system 
of interpretation attaches equal weight to the historical reality, 
and the spiritual import,—we are prepared to enter upon the ques- 
tion of the form under which quotations from the Old Testament 


* See the excellent remarks of Olshausen, “ Ein Wort,” &c. 5. 71 ff. Compare, 
too, the profound remark of §. Jerome, referring to Rev. v. 2: ‘“‘ Leo autem de Tribu 
Juda, Dominus Jesus Christus est, qui solvit signacula libri, non proprie unius, ut 
multi putant, Psalmorum David, sed omnium Scripturarum, que uno Scripture 
[scriptee] sunt Spiritu Sancto; et propterea unus liber appellantur. De quo Ezekiel 
mystico sermone testatur, quod scriptus fuerit intus et foris; in sensu, et in litera. De 
quo et Salvator loquitur in Psalmis: ‘In capitulo libri scriptum est de Me;’ non 
Jeremiz, non Isaiz, sed in omni Scriptura Sancta, que unus liber appellatur.”— 
Comm. in Isaiam, lib. ix., t. iv. p. 393. 

The following remarks of 5. Th. Aquinas, discussing the question, ‘‘ Utrum Sacra 
Scriptura sub una litera habeat plures sensus,” may serve to connect with the present 
stage of this inquiry what has been said, swpra, Lecture iv. p. 153, note +; “ Auctor 
Sacree Scripturze est Deus, in cujus potestate est ut non solum voces ad significandum 
accommodet (quod etiam homo facere potest), sed etiam res ipsas.s * * * ΠΙᾺ 
prima significatio qua voces significant res pertinet ad primum sensum, qui est sensus 
historicus, vel literalis. Illa vero significatio qua res significatee per voces iterum res 
alias significant dicitur sensus spiritualis, qui super literalem fundatur, et eum sup- 
ponit * * * Muitiplicitas hornn: sensuum non facit equivocationem, aut aliam 
speciem multiplicitatis: quia sensus isti non multiplicantur propter hoc quod una vox 
multa significet, sed quia ips res significatze per voces aliarum rerum possunt esse 
signa. Ht ita etiam nulla confusio sequitur in Sacra Scriptura, cum omnes sensus 
JSundentur super unum, scilicet literalem, ex quo solo potest trahi argumentum; non autem 
ex iis que secundum allegoriam dicuntur. * * * Non tamen ex hoc aliquid de- 
perit Sacrze Scripturee: quia nihil sub spirituali sensu continetur fidei necessarium 
quod Scriptura per literalem sensum alicubi manifeste non tradat.’—Summ. Theol. 
Pars 1ma, qu. i. art. x. t. xx. p. 9. Cf too, Lecture iii. p. 108, note ὃ. 

2 “ And over it the Cherubims of glory shadowing the mercy-seat; of which we 
eannot now speak particularly.”—Heb. ix. 5. Cf too, the remark as to Melchizedek: 
“Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to he uttered, seeing ye are dull 
of hearing.” —Jbid., v. 11. 


312 THE C(VMMISSION TO WRITE. [LECT. vn. 


meet us in the New. On a former occasion I have proved that, 
in no instance can we account for such quotations by our Lord 
and His Disciples on the plea of ‘ accommodation’ to the preju- 
dices or errors of the Jews :’ it is therefore unnecessary again to 
enter upon that question. I would now observe further. that we 
must with equal earnestness reject the notion that the facts and 
statements of the Old Testament are introduced merely by way 
of ‘application,’ or as illustrations founded on some features of 
general resemblance.” Were this view correct, the idea that the 
employment of such passages in the New Testament had been 
originally designed by the Holy Spirit of itself disappears: nay, 


1 Lecture ii.p. 71-77. The single fact, indeed, that to a great extent the Gospels, 
as well as the majority of S. Paul’s Epistles, were not addressed to Jews but to Gen- 
tiles, may of itself suffice to answer those who still maintain that the writers of the 
New Testament employed, in their citations from the Old, the principle of ‘accom- 
modation.’ In addition to the answer of Tertullian to Marcion, which I have quoted 
supra, p. 74, note, I may adduce the reply of S. Irenzeus to the same argument when 
advanced by the Gnostics: “ Quemadmodum dicunt hi, qui sunt vanissimi Sophisti, 
quoniam Apostoli cwm hypocris: fecerunt doctrinam secundum audientium capacitatem, 
et responsiones secundum interrogantium suspiciones [i. 6. ὑπολήψει]  Ἔ * * uti 
[i. e. adeo ut] non quemadmodum habet ipsa veritas, sed in hypocris?, et qaemadmo- 
dum capiebat unusquisque, Dominum et Apostolos edidisse magisterium * * ἢ 
Quis autem medicus volens curare eegrotum, faciat secundum concupiscentias egrotan- 
tium, et non secundum quod aptum est medicine? Quoniam autem Dominus Medicus 
venit [S. Luke, v.31], * * * non igitur jam secundum pristinam opinionem loque- 
batur eis,” &e.—Cont. Her., lib. m1. v. p.179. Tholuck, therefore, is inaccurate when 
he observes: “ A peculiarity of modern times is the theory of ‘accommodation,’ ac- 
cording to which all quotations of this class (viz., the entire mode of proof adapted 
in the Hpistle to the Hebrews) are disposed of as an ‘argumentatio e concessis’—so 
Semler, Ernesti, Teller, Griesbach, and also, for the most part, Stuart.”’—Das A. Test. 
im N. Test., 5. 5. 

* Tholuck, for example, arranges the quotations to be found in the New Testa 
ment under the following classes: (1.) Direct prophecies. (2.) Typical prophecies. 
(These two classes I have considered already.) (3.) Supports (Anlehnungen), and 
Adaptations or Applications (Anwendungen). The quotations which he terms ‘sup- 
ports’ are the same as those described supra, p. 307, notes ' and *. An ‘adaptation,’ 
or ‘application,’ Tholuck defines to be the citation of a parallel, with some formula of 
quotation; of which class he gives the following as examples: S. Matt. xiii. 35 
(‘‘ That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet”); xxvi. 31 (“For it is 
written”); S. John, ii. 17 (“It was written”); Acts, i. 20 (“For it is written”); xiii, 40 
(“Is spoken of in the prophets”); Rom. xi. 8 (‘‘ According as it is written”); 1 Cor. 
ix. 9 (“For it is written”); xiv. 21 (‘In the Law it is written”); 2 Cor. vi. 2 (“ For 
He saith”); viii. 15 (‘As it is written”).—loc. cit, s. 26 ff. On which see infra. 
Stuart appears to reduce such passages to the principle of ‘accommodation’—an 
‘accommodation,’ however, to the writer's own views. ‘Such cases,” he observes, 
“‘are frequent in the New Testament. God says by the prophet Hosea, ‘When Israel 
was a child, then I loved him, and called My Son out of Egypt’—ch. xi. 1. Now this 
is not prediction, but narration. But when Matthew describes the flight of Josept 
and Mary, with the infant Jesus, to Egypt, he says, ‘This took place, so that this 
passage of Scripture [in Hosea] had an accomplishment, ἵνα πληρωθῇ, κ. τ. Δ.’ Now 
here is, evidently, nothing more than a similarity of events.”"—A Comm: on the He- 
brews, p. 600. The remarks already made will, I trust, supply the answer to such a 
system of exposition. 


LECT, Vil.| THE FORM OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN, 313 


we could not even reasonabiy maintain that this alleged ‘ adap- 
tation’ of the language of the earlier writers was made under the 
Holy Spirit’s direction ; and, consequently, the inspiration of 
those parts of Scripture in which such ‘applications’ occur is al- 
together subverted. In addition to what has been already said 
with reference to the grounds on which the authors of the New 
Testament rest their system of interpretation, it is a sufficient 
answer to the allegation which we are considering, that in all the 
instances of this mere ‘application’ of the Old Testament which 
are usually brought forward, we find the quotation introduced by 
the phrases, ‘‘ For it is written ;’—“‘ That it might be fulfilled 
which was spoken by the prophet ;’—or some other expression 
to the same effect. Thus 8. John, when relating how the soldiers 
cast lots for our Lord’s garments, refers as follows to the words 
of the twenty-second Psalm :—‘‘ That the Scripture might be 
fulfilled which saith, They parted My raiment among them, and 
for My vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the 
soldiers did.” In the use of this passage by the Evangelist it is 
impossible to regard the expressions of the Psalmist otherwise 
than as conveying a strictly typical prophecy ; since even the 
plain grammatical sense renders it impossible to deny that the 
passage is represented in the Gospel as a direct prediction, which 
at this point of time, and at no other, found its perfect accom- 
plishment. Or, to take another example which perhaps of all 
others might seem most to resemble a mere ‘adaptation’ of a 
prophetic saying,—I mean where our Lord quotes the language 
of Zechariah : “‘ Awake, O sword, against My Shepherd, and 
against the Man that is My fellow, saith the Lord of hosts : smite 
the Shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered”” Here it will, 
no doubt, be admitted that Christ Himself is a competent ex- 
positor ; and His allusion to these words is as follows: “ All ye 
shall be offended because of Me this night: for ct is written, ‘I 
will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scat- 
tered abroad.’’”*® In short, that freedom with which the writers 
of the New Testament employed the language of the Old,* and 


1 Ἵνα ἣ γραφὴ πληρωθῇ" Διεμερίσαντο τὰ ἱμάτιά μου ἑαυτοῖς * * * οἱ μὲν 
οὖν στρατιῶται ταῦτα ἐποίησαν .---ῖδ, John, xix. 24. 

3. Zech, xiii. 7. 5. S. Matt. xxvi. 51---γέγραπται yap. 

* Tt is, perhaps, unnecessary to refer specially to such objections as are founded on 
the absence of the most exact and literal translation, even where no object could be 


314 THE COMMISSION TO WRITE. [LEOT. VII. 


which we are about to glance at more nearly, was the natural 
result of the fact that they spoke under the guidance of that same 
Divine Spirit under Whose inspiration the words which they 
quoted had been recorded, and under Whose instruction were at 
length developed the manifold allusions which the sayings of the 
former Scriptures contained.’ 

On this same principle, indeed, the Evangelists adduced the 
sayings of Christ. In His prayer to His Father, before His be- 
trayal, occur the words: ‘‘ Those that Thou gavest Me I have 
kept, and none of them is lost but the son of perdition.”’ After 
His betrayal, however, when our Lord gave Himself up to the 
“‘ band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees,” 


attained by such adherence to the original. Such objections, indeed, proceed on the 
tacit assumption that the writers of the New Testament were bound to act as a trans- 
lator of the Bible must act now; in other words, on the assumption that they were 
not inspired. To such arguments the ingenious illustration of 8. Jerome supplies a 
sufficient answer: ὁ Legimus, in Marco, dicentem Dominum, TaLiTtHa CumI; statim- 
que subjectum est, ‘quod interpretatur, Puella tibi dico, surge.’ Arguatur Evange- 
lista mendacii, quare addiderit, ‘tibi dico,’ quum in Hebrzo tantum est, ‘ puella 
surge.’ "—De opt. gen. interpret., Ad Pammach., Ep. lvii. t. i. p. 308. That the object 
of the New Testament writers was merely to represent with fidelity the idea to be 
conveyed, and not to strive after strict verbal agreement, is clear from another fact 
“analogous to that alluded to by S. Jerome. The constant asseveration of Christ, 
Amen, is to be found in Jer. xxviii. 6; where the LXX. render it by ἀληθῶς. Now 
S. Matt. xvi. 28; xxiv. 47; and S. Mark, xii. 43, give ὠμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν : while S. Luke, 
recording the same sayings of Christ, renders, as do the LXX., ἀληθῶς λέγω bpiv.— 
Ibe, ὯΝ; χα: CUES So-alh BY 

1 Having alluded to the very accurate citation of Jer. xxxi. 15, in S. Matt. ii. 
18, Dr. W. H. Mill observes: ‘Shall we then call this an application or accommoda- 
tion of the Old Testament passage to things beyond its immediate visible occasion ? 
There would be no need to scruple the term, if it were not meant to imply that this 
accommodation was arbitrary on the part of the Evangelist, or that the mind of the 
Spirit that spoke by Jeremiah does not most fully include this application. But thus 
meant, we are concerned to repudiate the proposition; and to appeal to the ample 
range of the prophecy itself as forbidding this restriction of its import.” * * * 
“We think it most reasonable to believe that the distress of the 15th verse is not neces- 
sarily confined to the case of these deported captives of Benjamin, among whom the 
prophet of Anathoth had lived. And as the coming of the Great Deliverer is the 
principal end to which all Prophecy is directed, we hold that the afflictions which 
more immediately preceded Christ’s mediation and its results, those especially by 
which His first manifestation to mankind was signalized, lay entirely within the. 
scope of the Divine Spirit in inditing these consolation. * * * The place 
which these considerations hold in the argument with objectors like Strauss is this 
only; to prove that they are simply begging the question, when they treat the pro- 
phecies as merely human writings, and, applying the rules of criticism not only to the 
language of the document, where they are truly applicable, but to the supposed mind 
of the writer as the sole measure of its import, they denounce every application as 
false and gratuitous, when it lies beyond the primary or immediate occasion.”—The 
Christian Advocates Publication for 1844, pp. 405-414. Cf, also, ἐδίά., p. 391, &e. 

2S. John, xvii. 12, where our Lord adds iva 7 γραφὴ tAnpwh7—with an obvious 
reference to His previous statement (ch. xiii. 18): “I speak not of you all; I know 
whom I Lave chosen: but that the Scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread 
with Me hath lifted up his heel against Me.” 


LECT. V0] THE FORM OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN. 315 


Ss. John again tells us : ‘‘ Jesus answered, I have told you that I 
am He; if therefore ye seek Me let these go their way. That 
the saying (observes the Evangelist) might be fulfilled which He 
spake, Of them which Thou gavest Me have I lost none :’”"— 
where we perceive that an expression, which the Lord had em- 
ployed with reference to the preservation of His followers from 
spiritual loss, is appealed to by 8. John as predicting their escape 
from temporal danger. Hence we clearly see that His Disciples 
regarded their Master’s words as containing manifold allusions : 
and hence we also derive a most important intimation as to the 
light in which they must have similarly regarded the Old Testa- 
ment prophecies. 

In entering upon the subject of the form under which the 
Old Testament is quoted, I shall pass over, as not directly bear- 
ing upon the present inquiry, the many ingenious explanations, 
by Oriental scholars, of how the Hebrew text and the New Tes- 
tament reference may, in several cases, be directly reconciled. 
The writers to whom I refer have endeavored to attain this object 
by pointing out the different senses of which the original terme 
are susceptible ;;—by adopting some of those various readingt 
which may be suggested in the Hebrew text in consequence of 
the similarity of several of the Hebrew ietters ;’—or, in fine, by 


1 §, John, xviii. 9---ἶνα πληρωθῇ ὁ λόγος ὃν εἶπεν. Of. Olshauser én wz, B. ii, s. 470, 
and Tholuck, ‘Comm. zum Ey. Johan.,” 5, 299. 

2 For example: In S. Matt. iv. 16, “The people which sat in dariness saw great 
light” —6c εἶδεν xéya—in accordance with the pointing of our present Hebrew tex 
of Isai. ix. 2 [1]—1xn; while the LXX. translate—idere φῶς μέγα, and therefor 
must have read—sy4,\ Similarly where the Εἰ. V. translates “ From the prey my sc° 
thou art gone up”’—Gen. xlix. 9, the LXX. render ἐκ βλαστοῦ, the word ὉΠ bein 
susceptible of both meanings. In some cases, even the Massora authorizes us to co 
rect the Hebrew text according to the New Testament. Εἰ. g. S. Peter quotes i's 
xvi. 10--ἰ Neither wilt Thou suffer Thine Holy One (τὸν ὍΟσιόν Σου) to see corrup 
tion”—Acts, ii. 27, which corresponds to the Massoretic reading—770n, in place of 
Tron (“Thy holy ones”) which our present Hebrew text presents. On this whole 
subject see H. Hody, ‘De Bibl. Text. Original.” lib. 111. pars i. c. 2, p. 243, &e. 

3 E. g. the quotation, “Behold ye despisers, and wonder,” &c.—Acts, xiii. 41 
where, in place of the version authorized by our present Hebrew text, * Behold ye 
among the heathen (Ὁ 13), and regard and wonder,” &¢.— Habak. i. 5, S. Paul adopte 
the translation of the LXX. who render καταφρονηταί ; reading (with the change of 
‘for ἢ p72. This explanation is fully confirmed by the fact that in Habak. ii. 5, 
the LXX. render this same word 7312 by καταφρονητής. See H. Hody, loc. cit., p. 261 
Similarly (with the change of Ἢ for 7) in Ps. xix. 13, the LXX. instead of ὉΠ, 
superbi, read Ὁ )5---ἀπὸ ἀλλοτρίων. See infra, p. 319, note 1 Cf. De Wette, 
“Hinleit.” § 83, 5.195. An interesting confirmation of the justice of such a method for 
reconciling difficulties has been lately pointed out. Mr. Layard, in his second work on 
“Nineveh and Babylon,” gives the following note of Mr. Thomas Ellis of the British 
Museum: “A discovery relating to the Jews of the captivity in Babylon, and con 


316 THE COMMISSION TO WRITE. [LEcr. VI 


showing, from a comparison of certain cognate dialects, that the 
Hebrew terms actually convey the sense ascribed to them in what 
the New Testament represents as their Greek equivalents.’ 
These are topics on which [ shall not pause ; because, although 
throwing much light upon the correct rendering of several parts 
of Scripture, they do not in any way affect the principle of that 
free use of the Old Testament on which I am now insisting. In- 
deed, the Old Testament itself points out that we are not to an- 
ticipate in the New that strict, literal subserviency, at estab- 
lishing which, in all cases, the researches to which I have just 


sequently of great interest to Oriental scholars, and especially to Biblical students, 
was made by Mr. Layard during his second expedition to Assyria. Amongst the 
various curious objects found on the banks of the Euphrates, and in the ruins of an- 
cient Babylonia, were several bowls or cups of terra cotta, round the inner surface of 
which were inscriptions in the ancient Chaldean language, written in characters 
wholly unknown, and, I believe, never before seen in Europe. * * * They must 
have been written long prior to any existing MSS. of the ancient Hebrew and Chal- 
dean languages that we know of. * * * But the most remarkable circumstance 
connected with these inscriptions is, that the characters used on the bowl marked 
No. 1 answer precisely to the description given of the most ancient Hebrew letters in 
the Babylonian Talmud, which contains an account of the nature and origin of the 
letters used by the Jews. * * * With respect to the translation, I have only to 
state that in many passages it is mere conjecture * * * but the difficulty is in- 
zreased tenfold through there being no distinction between 7, 7, and frequently 5; 
nor is there any distinction between ἢ, 1, and medial 3; nor between 7 and n, and 
sometimes m is written like m.”—pp. 509-511. 

1 E. g. S. Paul, Rom. x. 18, quotes, according to LXX., “ Their sound (ὁ φθόγγος 
αὐτῶν) went into all the earth,”’—the ordinary rendering of Ps. xix. 5, being “ Their 
line (D1) 15 gone out through all the earth.” (Gesenius renders: ‘‘(b) Chorda cithare, 
deinde sonus.”) On the principle that the original has both significations, Dr. Pococke 
here observes: ‘Concludunt multi lectum ab illis [scd/. LXX.] non nip Kavam, ‘linea 
eorum,’ sed O55p Kolam,‘vox eorum.’ * * * (Quam in sententiam qui descendere 
recusaverit * * * aliam, si libet, viam mecum experiatur, scil. dictioni 1p Kaw 
significatum suum (licet minus notum) restituendo. * * * Fiet id (ni fallor) lin- 
gue etiam Arabicee ope, &c.”—Porta Mosis, app. p.47. Again, Isai. xxviii. 16: “He 
that believeth, shall not make haste” (wm x5) is quoted in Rom. ix. 33, after the 
LXX., under the form, “ Whosoever believeth on Him shall not be ashamed” (οὐ 
καταισχυνθήσεται) ; andin 18. Pet. ii. 6, “shall not be confounded” (οὐ μὴ καταισχυνθῇ). 
‘“ Aliter legisse olim Greece Versionis authores quos secutus est Apostolus, asserunt 
docti, 5611. win. Yebosh vel 3 Yabish quod sonat ‘erubescet.’ * * * Quidni 
potius et hos et illos wm Yachish olim, prout nune habetur, legisse? alios tantum 
ejusdem significatus quam recentiores preetulisse, quos ambitu suo continere verbum 
ud suadent, et loci circumstantiz et interpretum authoritati additus lingue affinis 
Arabic usus in qua themata Haush, et Hish que Hebr. vin respondent, tres nobis 
stos (cum aliis) significatus exhibent * * *  scil. festinare, timere, pudore suffundi, 
yuorum tertium preeferunt LX X., secundum Chaldeus et Syrus, primum recentiores.” 
—Pococke, loc. cit., pp. 10, 11. Once more, Jer. xxxi. 9: ‘‘ Which My covenant they 
brake, although I was an Husband (553) unto them, saith the Lord”—is quoted, ac- 
cording to the LXX., in Heb. viii. 9, “ And I regarded them not (κἀγὼ ἠμέλησα), saith 
the Lord.” Here the probability certainly is that, by an interchange of 3 for 3, the 
LXX. read 1752, which means 7uéAyoa; Pococke, however, writes: “Lingua Ara- 
bicre ope * * * si quid adhuc restat; scrupuli, plane tollitur. In ea enim verbum 
>>2 Baala esr, non modo Dominum esse, et maritari, sed et perturbari, separari, fas 
tadire, nausvare.”—loc. cit., p. 9. 


LECT, VI.] THE FORM OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN, 317 


alluded sometimes aim. Consider, for example, how Moses him- 
self, in the book of Deuteronomy gives a version of the Fourth 
Commandment differing in many respects from its original an- 
nouncement, as written in the book of Exodus ; and how, at the 
same time, he enforces by the terms of this second version a new 
and special admonition." 

The quotations, by the New Testament writers, to which it 
is necessary to call attention, are as follows :— 

I. In the first place there are those passages which are taken 
strictly and literally from the Septuagint Version where it differs 
from the Hebrew. Thus our Lord Himself adopted and sanc- 
tioned the interpretation which the Seventy Interpreters had 
given of the original institution of marriage by accepting from 
their translation the important words “‘and they twain,” which 
do not occur in the Hebrew :’ and this same rendering is repeated 
by ὅδ. Paul.’ In all such cases the Greek translation is followed, 
as exhibiting a true and clear perception of the meaning intended 
by the language of the Old Testament: the idea which the 
words cf the original had veiled being thus brought to light, im 
the New Testament, by that same Divine authority whereby, at 
the first, the form had been suggested under which it was ex- 
pressed by the Old Testament writers.* 


1 “ Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy * * * in it thou shalt not do 
any work, thou, nor thy son, * * * nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is 
within thy gates: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, ἄς. * * * 
wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath Day and hallowed it.”—Exod. xx. 8-11. 

“Keep the Sabbath Day to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee 
* %* * in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, * * * nor any of 
thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: that thy man-servant and thy 
maid-servant may rest as well as thou. And remember that thou wast a servant in 
the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out hence through a 
a mighty hand, and by a stretched-out arm: therefore the Lord thy God commanded 
thee to keep the Sabbath Day.”—Deut. v. 12-15. 

2 “For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his 
wife: and they twain shall be one flesh” (καὶ ἔσονται οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα uiav)—S. 
Matt. xix. 5; S. Mark, x. 8, which verbatim agrees with the LXX. rendering of Gen, 
n. 24, where the Hebrew has merely—7nN W323 ὙΥΤῚ, 

Eph, ole 

4 The most remarkable instance of this class of quotations is unquestionably the 
citation of Ps. xl. 6—‘ Mine ears hast thou opened (5 nD O721N),”—in Heb. x. 5, 
where we read, ‘‘ A body hast Thou prepared Me” (σῶμα κατηρτίσω μοι); in exact 
conformity with the LXX. Commentators of the most opposite schools, are singularly 
unanimous in regarding the New Testament form of exhibiting this passage as a 
strictly correct representation of the sense of the original. Bishop Pearson, referring 
to-Phil. ii. 8, has pointed out one line of exposition: “ Being the boring of the ear un- 
der the Law (Exod xxi. 6; Deut. xv. 17) was a note of perpetual servitude; being 
this was expressed in the words of the Psalmist, and changed by the Apostle into the 
preparing of a body ; it followeth that when Christ’s Body first was frame‘, even then 


318 THE COMMISSION TO WRITE. [LECT. VIL 


II. On the other hand,—and this constitutes the second class 
of quotations to be considered,—wherever the Septuagint does 
not represent the true sense of the Prophet’s words, the authors 
of the New Testament altogether abandon it, and give their own 
translation of the Hebrew. For example, 8. John quotes the 
prediction, ‘‘ They shall look on Him whom they pierced,” which 
presents a literal version of the Hebrew of Zechariah, with the 
slight but, as 8. John quotes, necessary change of ‘‘ Him” for 
“Me.” ‘These words the Seventy had translated : ‘ They shall 
look upon’ Me, because they have mocked Me,’*—a translation 


did He assume the form of a servant.”—Euxposition of the Apostle’s Creed, Art. ii. 
On a different principle, Rudelbach observes: “The apparent difficulty here is most 
easily removed by the obvious remark that the ‘perfodere aures,’ according to Exod. 
xxi. 5, 6, was the token of servants who from love for their master desired to remain 
his servants for ever’—Zeiischrift, 1841. H. iv. s. 5; the Psalmist contrasting obedi- 
ence, the true sacrifice, with the animal sacrifices of the Law. Thus, as Ebrard in 
loc. (“ Der Br. an die Hebr.,” s. 331) observes, the LXX. have not altered the real 
meaning of the original, viz., “Thou desirest not beasts for sacrifice, but Myself.” 
Many modern expositors (Hengstenberg, Stier, Hitzig, Tholuck, Bleek, Stuart), on 
the other hand, reject the reference to the Law, and take ΓΞ, fodit, in the sense of 
ma, retexit. Thus Hengstenberg translates “ Kars hast Thou dug through for me’’— 
‘The Psalmist must in these words place the obedience, to which he was internally 
drawn by God, in contrast to sacrifices, i.e. ‘Thou hast made me hearing, obedient.’ ” 
In the epistle to the Hebrews the thought is not altered by the LXX. translation, 
“¢Thou hast given me a Body, so that I willingly serve Thee in the execution of 
Thy will.’”—Comm. on Psalms (Clarke’s For. Theol. Lib., vol. ii. p. 71). So Tholuck 
(in loc., 8. 350): “‘‘Thou hast prepared for me a body, which I am to consecrate as a 
sacrifice to Thee ;’” and he also observes: “To the difference in Heb. x. 5, particu- 
larly great importance has been attached; meanwhile, according to what has been 
adduced by us on that passage, we venture to consider it as decided, that the sense 
of the Psalmist has been just as little altered by the Greek translator, as when on 
Hosea, xiv. 3 [‘‘ The calves of our lips”], he translated [see Heb. xiii. 15, “ The fruit 
of our lips”] according to the reading, 75 [καρπόν], where we have O™».”—loe. cit. 8, 
41. And that this opinion has not arisen from any antecedent prejudice on Tholuck’s 
part in favor of the infallibility of the sacred writers, is clear from his remark as to 
Heb. ii. 7: “In the application which he [the inspired writer] makes of the παρ᾽ dy- 
γέλους, and βραχύ τι, his translation has led him astray (hat ihn seine Uebersetzung 
irre geleitet)”—s. 34. And again: “In reference to this [the quotation Heb. ii. 7] 
it must be acknowledged that our author has allowed himself to be guided by his 
translation to an application which does not correspond to the Old Testament text. 
According to the principles which we have laid down in general concerning the in- 
spiration of the Apostles, we feel no hesitation in acknowledging this. In the same 
manner, in Heb. xi. 21, the version of the LXX. which the author follows must be 
held to be erroneous. In importance, these mistakes (diese Versehen) stand in the 
same category as when Matthew (ch. xxi. 5) quotes, according to the Hebrew, ἐπὲ 
ὑποζύγιον καὶ πῶλον νέον [LXX.], and refers this to the two animals in the entry 
of Christ.".—s. 41. Tholuck’s reason for charging 3. Matthew with error here ap- 
pears to be merely the fact that 8. John (xii, 14, 15) alludes only to the animal on 
which the Lord sat. But cf. Olshausen, B. i. 5. 766: and Hengstenberg, ‘“ Christol.,” 
B. I. ii, 132 ff. 

1 “Erépa γραφὴ 2έγει: οψονται εἰς ὃν éSexévtyoav.—s. John, xix. 37. 

2 PT ADR ON dW 1O[D7T1.—Zeeh. xii. 10. 

® Καὶ ἐπιβλέψονται πρός μὲ ἀνθ᾽ ὧν κατωρχήσαντο. It is not necessary to con- 
aider whether the LXX. gave this version, because (as Olshausen in loc. suggests) the 


LECT. VII.] THE FORM OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN. 319 


which not only was unsuited to the Evangelist’s object, but is 
also irreconcilable with our Hebrew text. The principle of this 
class of quotations is accurately described by 8. Jerome when, in 
his exposition of the passage, he observes: “The Evangelist 
John, who drank wisdom from the Lord’s bosom, a Hebrew of 
the Hebrews, whom the Saviour dearly loved, has not paid much 
regard to the import of the Greek Version ; but has interpreted 
word for word as he had read in the Hebrew, and has told us 
that it was fulfilled at the period of the Lord’s Passion.”! 

III. The third class consists of quotations which differ from 
both the original text and the Septuagint Version, even where, 
according to our exegesis, the Hebrew and the Greek trans- 
lation correspond with each other. 8. Paul, for example, quotes 
the sixty-eighth Psalm under the following form: ‘ Wherefore 
he saith, When He ascended: up on high, He led captivity cap- 
tive, and gave gifts unto men,’”—which latter words present a 
meaning apparently the reverse of that conveyed by both the 
Hebrew and the Septuagint, according to which the sense of the 
passage is, ‘‘ Thou hast received gifts for men.”? In this instance 
commentators have been singularly perplexed. Some have pro- 


original, as applied to God, was to them unintelligible; or whether, as 8, Jerome 
thought (see next note), their copies presented a different reading. It is, however, to 
be observed, that the later Jewish versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, 
coincide with S. John, and with each other, in employing the verb ἐκκεντέω. Cf 
Rey. i. 7. 

1 “Hebraic literze Daleth (7) et Res (7), hoc est Ὁ et R similes sunt, et parvo 
᾿ tantum apice distinguuntur. Ex quo evenit ut idem verbum diverse legentes, aliter 
atque aliter transferant. * * * Si enim legatur Dacaru (ΠΡ) ἐξεκέντησαν, id 
est ‘compunxerunt’ sive ‘confixerunt’ accipitur: sin autem contrario ordine literis 
commutatis RAcaDuU ("7p"), ὠρχήσαντο, id est, ‘saltaverunt’ intelligitur, et ob similitu- 
dinem literarum error est natus. Joannes autem Evangelista, qui de pectore Domini 
hausit sapientiam, Hebrzeus ex Hebreis, quem Salvator amabat plurimum, non mag- 
nopere curavit quid Greece literze continerent; sed verbum interpretatus e verbo est, 
ut in Hebrzeo legerat, et tempore Dominic Passionis dixit esse completum.”—Com- 
ment, in Zach., lib. iii., tom. vi. p. 903. 

Ξ 2 Διὸ λέγει; ᾿Αναβὰς εἰς ὕψος ἠχμαλ. αἰχμ. καὶ ἔδωκε δόματα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις.--- 
ph. iv. 8. 

S ooxa mina mnp>—Ps. lxviii, 18; ἔλαβες δόματα ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ.---Χ Χ. 
“Thou hast received gifts for men.”—E. V. The manner in which the Apostle, in the 
earlier part of the verse (ἀναβὰς εἰς ὕψος ἠχμαλώτευσεν αἰχμαλωσίαν), follows, word 
for word, the version of the LXX. (AvaBdc εἰς ὕψος ἠχμαλώτευσας αἰχμαλωσίαν), 
proves to a demonstration that his departure from it, towards the close, was designed. 
Olshausen, speaking of the difficulties connected with this passage, and having re- 
ferred to the διό of ver. 8, and the obvious reference of the καὶ αὐτὸς ἔδωκεν, of ver. 
11, to the αὐτός ἐστιν Kai 6 ἀναβάς, in ver. 10, as proving that the Apostle designedly 
quoted as he has done,—observes: ‘The expositor must look for the fault in himself, 
if he cannot point to the connecting links of the argument, rather than in his author.” 
It will be well to bear this remark in mind when we proceed to consider the assertion 
that the New Testament writers quote “ from memory.” 


320 THE COMMISSION TO WRITE. |LECT. vn. 


posed to alter the Hebrew according to 8. Paul; others have 
suggested that there is here no quotation from the Psalmist, but 
a reference to some unknown Christian hymn ; while others, 
again, favor what has been styled “the milder expedient” of 
saying that 8. Paul has arbitrarily altered the meaning accord- 
ing to his own views, or, undesignedly, when citing from memory, 
missed the sense. But all such “ expedients” are as unnecessary 
as they are untenable: the context of itself affords the clue to 
the Apostle’s line of argument. In the previous verse he had 
observed, ‘‘ Unto every one of us is given grace according to the 
measure of the gift of Christ :” and this great truth—namely the 
universality of Christ’s gifts, to Jew and Gentile alike,—is what 
he goes on, in the quotation before us, to prove from the Old 
Testament itself. By means of the Redemption, argues 8, Paul, 
spiritual gifts have been bestowed on all mankind. We know 
too—for §. John’ has fully disclosed the doctrine,—that our 
Lord’s bestowal of the gifts of the Holy Ghost is inseparably con- 
nected with the fact of His Ascension. In a word, Christ, by His 
Ascension, has redeemed the captive human race, and has thereby 
“taken” to Himself (as the Psalmist had directly stated the mat- 
ter) gifts among men. Now it is implied in the mere statement 
of this fact, that they, whom God thus chooses for Himself must, 
as such, have been furnished with the necessary qualifications : 
and this is the aspect of the question whicn 8. Paul desires to 
render prominent.” It is only by attending to the context that 
we can ever discern the drift of the inspired writers : or discover 
how justly the Apostle can here attach to the ““ taking” of the 
Hebrew and the Septuagint the sense of “giving.” That God 
should “ take” to Himself, He must first, from the very nature of 
the case, “ give” certain graces to man.* 

1 8. John, vii. 39; xiv. 16; xvi. 7. 

? Thave here adopted Olshausen’s excellent remarks on this text (B. iv. s. 226 ff). 

® So also Hengstenberg observes: “It is evident that by the ‘He gave,’ which oe- 
curs in Eph. iy. 8, instead of ‘Thou takest,’ the sense is not altered, but only brought 
out: the ‘ giving’ presupposes the ‘ taking;’ the ‘ taking’ is succeeded by the ‘ giving,’ 
as its consequence. * * * We observe, further, that the quotation of our passage 
in the Epistle to the Ephesians is not a mere accommodation, as the character and 
manner of that quotation evidently show.”— Comm. on Psalms. (Clarke’s For. Theol. 
Lib., vol. ii. p 354.) I may add that Dr. Pococke, unable to adduce any authority 
from the Arabic, brings forward a number of Arabic words which have opposite sig- 
nifications; and then attempts to explain S. Paul’s quotation by the conjecture that 


the same holds good here:—“ Quam significatuum varietatem et olim apud Hebreeos 
habuisse verbum mp5 mihi plusquam probabile videtur.”—loc. cit., p. 34. 


LECT. VII.] THE FORM OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN. 321 


IV. The last class of quotations to be considered is one which 
combines some of those just described ; namely, when the Septu- 
agint having attached a particular meaning to a passage in the 
Hebrew, one New Testament writer builds his argument upon 
the literal sense of the Original, while another adopts for his pur- 
pose the sense given to it in the Greek Version ; thus affording 
an additional illustration of the pregnant significance of the Old 
Testament. For example, 8. Matthew adduces, with close ad- 
herence to the Hebrew, the words of Isaiah, “Surely He hath 
borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows ;” or as the Evangelist 
quotes : “That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias 
the Prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our 
sicknesses,”” Here he quite abandons the Septuagint, which 
translates “‘He bears our sins and is pained for us ;”’—a sense 
which would plainly not have been appropriate in the passage of 
the Gospel, but which entirely corresponds to the purpose of 8. 
Peter, when dilating upon the internal maladies of humanity, 
and the healing of sin. That Apostle consequently accepts the 
signification ascribed to the original by the Seventy Interpreters, 
when he quotes, as follows, the prophet’s words : “‘ Who His own 
Self bare our sins in His own Body on the tree * * * by 
Whose stripes ye were healed.”* In this case, the seeming dif- 
ference in the explanation of the same passage, by the two in- 
spired writers, disappears if we remember that physical sufferings 
(and death is to be placed at their head),° present one of the as- 

1 Isai. lit, 4. 

2 Αὐτὸς τὰς ἀσθενείας ἡμῶν ἔλαβεν, καὶ τὰς νόσους ἐβαστασεν.----, Matt. viil. 17. 

" Οὗτος τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν φέρει, καὶ περὶ ἡμῶν ὀδυνᾶται * * * τῷ μώλωπι 
αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς léOnuev.—ver. 4, 5. 

4 Ὃς τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν αὐτὸς ἀνήνεγκεν * * * οὗ τῷ μώλωπι ἰάθητε.----1 8, 
Pet. ii. 24 (see p. 307, note’). As exhibiting the use of the same passage to illus- 
trate different aspects of Christian doctrine, cf. the references to Ps. xxviii. by both 


S. Matthew and S. Paul; see supra, Lecture iy. p. 151, note. Compare, too (supra, 
p- 299, note), the manner in which Habakkuk (ii. 14) employs the words of Isaiah 
xi. 9 


* “The wages of sin is death."—Rom. vi. 23. To the same effect Vitringa ob- 
serves: “ Apostolus, spirituali oculo videns, Beneficium illud Christi, quo homines a 
morbis et egritudinibus pravisque affectionibus suis liberabat, aut earum auferendarum 
cura se fatigabat ad seram vesperam (de eo enim proprie agitur:), in se habere typum 
et figuram laboris quem Dozinus sumeret in ferendis et auferendis gritudinibus spir- 
itualibus, ἢ. e. peccatis, et vera peccatorum poena: verba Prophetze eo scopo allegavit, 
ut apertis oculis ipsum Beneficium peccatorum latorum et ablatorum in ipso hoe typo 
et figura contemplaremur.” * * * ‘‘Apostoli et Evangeliste in explicandis et 
allegandis dictis Prophetarum, hance ubique secuti sunt hypothesin; omnem emphasin 
que in verbis et phrasi latet, per implementum repreesentandam esse. Quandoquidem 
vero videret Evangelista voces O~5r et o°3ND72 quoque significare posse morhos et 


322 THE COMMISSION TO WRITE. [LECT. Vi. 


pects under which we are taught in Scripture to regard the con- 
sequences of sin. 

I have dwelt thus minutely on this question for two reasons : 
Firstly, because its discussion adds considerably to the amount of 
proof already advanced in support of the inspiration of Scripture : 
—the manner in which the words of the Old Testament are em- 
ployed exhibiting, in the strongest light, the deep and pregnant 
sense of its most casual expressions ; while, conversely, the free 
use thus made of documents which they firmly believed to be 
Divine no less clearly denotes the influence by which the authors 
of the New Testament were themselves guided. And, secondly, 
because the facts, elicited during its examination, Hole a com- 
plete answer to the assertion which, I have observed above, must 
be, in every point of view, repudiated ;—namely, that we are to 
ascribe to errors of memory, on the part of the authors of the 
New Testament, those variations from the Septuagint translation 
which the form of their quotations presents, The principles 
which have been laid down in the preceding remarks, if consist- 
ently carried out, must, I submit, ultimately establish the truth 
of the proposition, that in all cases,—even where the acuteness 
of expositors has hitherto been at fault, and where they have not 
as yet succeeded in accounting for the form of the New Testa- 
ment quotation,—the sacred writers, however their language is 
to be explained, really unfold for us the true import of those 
words of the Old Testament which they adduce ; an import, 
moreover, which the same Holy Spirit by Whom they too were 
guided had designed, from the first, that its language should con- 
vey. An example will briefly show how weak the reasons are 
which serve as a sufficient inducement for expositors to ascribe 
their own ill success in accounting for the difficulty before them 
to a want of accuracy on the part of the sacred writer. 

In the ninth chapter of his Epistle to the Romans, 8. Paul, 
who required a striking fact to illustrate his meaning, has quoted 
the language which God had addressed to Pharaoh’ when wilfully 
affectiones corporales, guibus tanguam peccati consequentibus homines afficiuntur; et in 
cura qua Dominus se fatigabat * * * preludium quoddam esse ejus laboris, 
quem in extremis sustineret * * * locum, oculo Divino inspectum, hue quoque 
transtulit. ”— Comm. in Jesai., t. ii. p. 667. 

1 Λέγει yao 7 γραφὴ τῷ Φαραώ: ὅτι εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἐξήγε ἐρά σε, ὅπως 


ἐνδείξωμαι ἐν σοὶ τὴν δύναμίν μου, καὶ ὅπως διαγγελῇ τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐν πάσῃ τῇ 
yn.—Rom. ix. 17. 


LECT. VIl.] THE FORM OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN. 323 


and perversely resisting the continued exhibition of His power, 
and the repeated announcement of His commands, Of necessity, 
therefore, the Apostle abandoned the Septuagint Version, which 
had softened down the force of the original by rendering—*“ On 
this account hast thou been preserved :᾽ and supplies his own 
accurate and literal translation of the Hebrew, ‘‘ For this same 
purpose have I raised thee up.”’ In the remainder of this quota- 
tion—with one trifling exception, for which, however, commen- 
tators have satisfactorily accounted,’—S. Paul strictly adheres to 
the Septuagint. If we now turn to the twenty-fifth and twenty- 
sixth verses of this same chapter, which consist of two quotations 
from the prophet Hosea,’ we are told by the expositor to whom I 
refer, and whose explanation of the former quotation I have just 
adopted, that, as the difference does not at all affect the thought, 
it must only be ranked among those incidental to ‘ quotations 
from memory :”* while in the case of the next three verses, in 


τσ νεκεν τούτου διετηρήθης (ΤΠ ΠΏΡΤ--- Πᾶν 1 made thee stand”) Zva 
ἐνδείξωμαι ἐν σοὶ τὴν ἰσχύν μου, καὶ ὅπως διαγγελῇ τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐν πάσῃ τῇ 
γῇ.--- Εἰχοᾶ. ix. 16. 

3 The adoption of δύναμις by S. Paul in place of ἰσχύς is well explained by Mr. 
Alford in loc.: “τ. ἰσγύν μου LXX.: δύν. is perhaps chosen by the Apostle as more 
general, ἰσχὺς applying rather to those deeds of miraculous power of which Egypt 
was then witness.” 

3 “As He saith also in Osee, I will call them My people,” ἄο.---Κ αλέσω τὸν οὐ 
λαόν μου λαόν pov, καὶ τὴν οὐκ ἠγαπημένην ἠγαπημένην" καὶ ἔσται ἐν TO τόπῳ οὗ ἐῤῥέθη 
αὐτοῖς" Οὐ λαός μου ὑμεῖς, ἐκεῖ κληθήσονται υἱοὶ Θεοῦ COvtoc.—Rom. ix. 25, 26. Which 
passage the LXX. present under the following version: dyaxjow τὴν οὐκ ἠγαπημένην, 
καὶ ἐρῶ τῷ οὐ λαῷ μου Λαός μου ei σύ. (Hos. 11. 23) καὶ ἔσται ἐν τῷ τόπῳ οὗ ἐῤῥέθη 
αὐτοῖς Οὐ λαός μου ὑμεῖς, κληθήσονται καὶ αὐτοὶ υἱοὶ Θεοῦ ζῶντος (Hos. i. 10.) Here 
we perceive that the Apostle not only combines two distinct passages; but also in- 
verts the order of one of them, in which, too, he consistently substitutes καλέσω for 
ἐρῶ :—the Hebrew verb in both places being νὰ. Now if it be borne in mind that 
καλέω, according to the usage of the New Testament, is the technical term for express- 
ing the Divine ‘call’ to man, we can discern, I conceive, an obvious motive as*well for 
the arrangement of the words as for their selection ; especially if we admit the justice 
of the following remarks of Mr. Alford: ‘It is difficult to ascertain in what sense the 
Apostle cites these two passages from Hosea as applicable to the Gentiles being called 
to be the people of God. That he does so is manifest from the words themselves, and 
from the transition to the Jews in ver. 27. In the prophet they are spoken of Jsrael ; 
see ch. i. 6-11, and ch. ii. throughout.” Mr. Alford—justly rejecting the notion of a 
mere ‘application’—then explains: ‘‘ He brings them forward to show that it is con- 
sonant with what we know of God’s dealings, to receive as His people those who were 
formerly not His people,—that this may now take place with regard to the Gentiles, as 
it was announced to happen with regard to Israel,—and even more,—that Israel in 
this, as in so many other things, was the prophetic mirror in which God foreshowed, on 
a small scale. His future dealings with mankind.” 

4“ Aus dem Gediichtniss-citiren.*—Olshausen, in loc. B. iii. 5. 376. It is strange 
that in all cases where he feels a similar difficulty, Olshausen should have recourse to 
this solution: e. g. ‘‘ This passage of Mark [ch. i. 2, see supra, p. 308, note] is an un- 
mistakable indication that he had documents before him of which he made use: he 
borrowed from Matthew and Luke the formula of citation, but inserted from memory 


324 THE COMMISSION TO WRITE. [LECT. vn 


which the words of Isaiah are adduced,’ this same writer points 
out how exactly they agree with the Greek Version,—the single 
exception being no longer ascribed to imperfect recollection, but 
being justly explained by the requirements of the Apostle’s ar- 


gument, 
A direct answer, however, to the assertion that the New Tes- 


tament writers have quoted the former Scriptures ‘from mem- 
ory” is supplied by the striking fact to which a distinguished 
scholar has drawn attention ; namely, that “the verbal agree- 
ment of the Evangelists with each other is particularly remark- 
able in many citations from the Old Testament, in which they 
follow neither the Hebrew text nor the Septuagint with exact- 


ness,” 
The principle on which I have thus insisted is forcibly illus- 


trated by the only instance where the Greek Version, and not 
the Hebrew text of a passage in the Old Testament, necessarily 
supplied the source of the quotation. In the eighth chapter of 
the Acts of the Apostles, the Ethiopian Eunuch is represented 
as ‘‘reading’’—of course in the translation of the Seventy—a 


(aus dem Gedachtniss) the words out of Malachi without altering the formula.”— 
Comm., B. i. s. 163. 

' Namely, verses 27 and 28 from Isai. x. 22, 25; and ver. 29 from Isai.i.9. “The 
words of the [former of these] quotations follow the LX X. with accuracy up to én? 
τῆς γῆς [viz., ‘* Because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.”—ver. 28], 
for which that version reads, ἐν τῇ οἰκουμένῃ ὅλῃ. It may be that Paul selected the for- 
mer phrase, because it expresses more definitely the universality of the Judgment.” —loc. cit. 
B. iii. 5. 376. Touching the latter quotation (ver. 29), Mr. Alford draws attention to 
the fact of its literal agreement with the LXX., even in the adoption of the word 
σπέρμα as the equivalent for the Hebrew 7772, residuwm—“ implying a remnant for a 
Jresh planting.” In ver. 33 the citation is composed of Isai. viii. 14 (quoted from the 
Hebrew, and already applied to Christ in 8. Luke, ii. 34), and Isai. xxviii. 16:—the 
“stone of stumbling” of the former, being substituted for the “‘ precious corner-stone” 
of the latter passage. These texts are again conjoined in 1S. Pet. ii. 6-8 (cf: Alford 
in loc. 

3 oe “Die Entstehung der schrift]. Evangelien,”s.4. E. g. 5. Matt. xi. 10, 
and 8. Luke, vii. 27 (see also S. Mark, i. 2), agree verbatim as follows: “This is he 
of whoin it is written, Ἰδού ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου, ὃς 
κατασκευάσει τὴν ὁδόν σου ἔμπροσθέν oov.—while the LXX., which iu all points cor- 
responds with the Hebrew, thus renders the words of Mal. iii. 1: Ἰδοὺ ἐξαποστέλλω 
τὸν ἀγγελόν μου, καὶ ἐπιβλέψεται ὁδὸν πρὸ προσώπου μου. ‘‘ Remarkable,” writes 
Olshausen,—unable to have recourse here to the ‘quotation from memory” theory,— 
‘‘is the extremely accurate agreement of the Evangelists in this section, as well in 
single expressions (e. g. Luke, vii. 23), as particularly (Matt. xi. 10) in the Old Testa- 
ment quotation from Mal. iii. 1. The LXX. translate the passage accurately according to 
the Hebrew text,—both Evangelists, however, deviate uniformly from both translations.” — 
B, i. s. 353. Gieseler points out that a similar fact is to be noticed in other parts of 
the New Testament: “There is also found, in quotations in the Epistles of different 
Apostles, an equal relation to each other and to their sources” (e. g. 1 Pet. ii, 6. 8; 
Rom. ix. 33 [see supra, p. 316, note *]).—Jbid., s. 89. 

* Acts, viii. 32, 33—H δὲ περιοχὴ τῆς γραφῆς ἣν ἀνεγίνωσκεν ἣν αὔτη, κι τ A, 


LECT. VII.] THE FORM OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN. 325 


passage from the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah. In this case 
(with the exception of the pronouns “him” and “his ;” and 
even here the reading is not absolutely fixed),* the extract is 
word for word coincident with the Septuagint translation, even 
where it deviates from the Hebrew text. If, indeed, in this quo- 
tation, where no motive for any departure from the original 
could possibly be assigned, we meet with such deviations as oc- 
cur elsewhere, the assertion that the sacred writers quote ‘ from 
memory” could not, perhaps, be justly questioned: but here a 
literal transcript was to be looked for ; and that literal transcript 
is to be found, The Eunuch had read the passage from the 
Greek Version, and accordingly the inspired historian accurately 
copies that translation.’ 


The deviation of the LX X. from the Hebrew text of this passage is notoriously very 
considerable. Vitringa observes on this place (Isai. liii. 8): ‘Qui hie pluribus 
ἀκριβοῦσι in Versione Greeca cum Hebrzea comparanda, nihil agunt, et, ut quod verum 
est dicam, ineptiunt. Interpres enim Grecus hujus libri fuit tmperitus; et Lucas recenset 
verba ab Eunucho ex Grieco textu lecta.”— Comm. in Jesai., t. ii. p. 673. 

? Our text reads in Acts, viii. 32—rod κείραντος αὐτόν, and τὼ στόμα αὐτοῦ. 
But see Lachman’s Apparat. Crit. 

? An interesting paralle! to this fact is found in Jer. xxvi. 18: ‘Micah the 
Morasthite prophesied in the days of Hezekiah King of Judah, and spake to all the 
people of Judah, saying, Thus saith the Lord of Hosts: Zion shall be plowed like a 
Ποιά, and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places 
of a forest,”—words which are copied verbatim from Micah, iii. 12. We have seen in 
the instances already examined that, as in the New Testament, where there was not 
a direct transcript of the words, this literal coincidence was not observed :—here there 
is a direct transcript, and we have, therefore, a faithful adherence to the original. See 
supra, Ὁ. 298, note *. This deviation from the LXX. of our Lord’s reference to Isai. 
Ixi. 1 (in the Synagogue at Nazareth where He “stood up for to read (dvayvévat)"— 
8. Luke, iv. 16-19), may, at first sight, be regarded as an objection to what I have just 
advanced: but a moment’s attention to the nature of the Synagogue worship (see 
Jahn’s “ Archiologie,” Th. iii. 5, 438 ff.) will show that it is not so. That service com- 
menced with a doxology; a section was next read from the Law, which was followed 
by a second doxology; then came the reading of a passage from the Prophets. These 
portions of Scripture were read from the Hebrew text, and were immediately translated 
into the vernacular tongue. On this the reader or some other person present addressed 
the people. Thus 8. Paul went into the Synagogue at Antioch, “‘and sat down. And 
after the reading of the Law and the Prophets, the rulers of the Synagogue sent unto 
them, saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the peo- 
ple, say on. Then Paul stood up,” &e.—Acts, xiii. 15. In the case before us our Lord, 
who was also the reader, addressed the people; and we cannot doubt that the parallel 
passage from the prophet, which S. Luke has incorporated in his translation of the 
words which Christ had read, was actually adduced ty Him in the course of His ex 
hortation when ‘He began to say unto them, This day is this Scripture fulfilled in 
your ears,” and when all ‘wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of 
His mouth” (ver. 21, 22). These remarks not only answer the supposed objection 
which we are considering (since our Lord read from the Hebrew text), but also show 
the weakness of Olshausen’s observation: “The words, ἀποστεῖλαι τεθραυσμένους ἐν 
ἀφέσει, are found neither in the Hebrew text, nor in the LXX. translation of this 
passage, and have therefore been certainly (wohl) inserted, from memory, by the 
Evangelist. * * * These words, which are altogether wanting in Isai. lxi. 1, 
have been doubtless taken by Luke from the parallel passage in Isai. lviii. 6, and in 


326 THE COMMISSION TO WRITE. [LECT. VIL 


The foregoing examination of the language of the sacred 
writers naturally leads to a topic which, from the earliest times, 
has attracted attention. From the very first, the absence from 
the diction of Scripture of that rhetorical science which was so 
earefully studied by the Greeks and Romans has been made a 
source of cavil against the maintainers of Christianity.’ If “ holy 
men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,” why, 
it has been demanded, do we not find in their writings that per- 
fection of style, or that ornate eloquence, which distinguishes 
the language of the Orators and Philosophers of ancient times, 
who thereby acquired their personal influence, and have won im- 
perishable fame ?’ This objection, which has been renewed in 


terwoven with the other. Here again he followed the LXX. The writers of the 
New Testament, therefore, treat the Old with great freedom. Wavering in their 
memories in a manner altogether human; confounding (verwechselnd) passages, in- 
terchanging (vertauschend) words,—everything was so directed, nevertheless, by the 
higher Spirit of Truth, Who animated and guided them, that nowhere does anything 
untrue or leading to error result ; but even the Truth rather presents itself from a new 
aspect, and accordingly reveals itself, in its nature, so much the more perfectly.”— 
B. i. s. 461 ff 

? Arnobius (flor. A. D. 298) enumerates the ordinary objections of this nature: 
“Sed ab indoctis hominibus, et rudibus, scripta sunt, et idcireo non sunt facili au- 
ditione credenda. * * * Trivialis et sordidus sermo est. * * * Barbarismis, 
soloecismis, obsitz sunt, inquit, res vestree, et vitiorum deformitate pollute. Puerilis 
sane, atque angusti pectoris reprehensio. * * * Cum de rebus agitur ab osten- 
tatione submotis, quid dicatur, spectandum est, non quali cum amcenitate dicatur: 
nee quid aures commulceat, sed quas afferat audientibus utilitates; maxime cum 
sciamus etiam quosdam sapientiz deditos, non tantum abjecisse sermonis cultum, 
verum etiam, cum possent ornatius atque uberius eloqui, trivialem studio humilitatem 
secutos, ne corrumperent scilicet gravitatis rigorem, et sophistica se potius ostenta- 
tione jactarent.”—Adv. Gentes, lib. 1. ce. lviii., lix. (ap. Routh “Script. Eccl. Opusc.,” 
t. ii p. 291). To the same effect S. Isidore of Pelusium (flor. A. Ὁ. 412) defends the 
style of the sacred writers, which had been urged against him as a proof τοῦ μὴ εἶναι 
θεῖον κήρυγμα, by alleging the authority of Plato, who had asserted: ὅτε φιλοσόφων 
μὲν ἀνάξιον ἣ εὐγλωττία, μειρακίων δὲ παιζόντων ἡ dLAoriyia.—Epist., lib. iv. n. 30, 
Ῥ. 429. 

? Dr. Conyers Middleton,—who, in his “ Essy on the Gift of Tongues,” has ex- 
aggerated to an absurd degree the peculiarities of the Hellenistic dialect,—having 
quoted the words of Cicero, “Quis uberior in dicendo Platone? Jovem, qnidem, 
aiunt Philosophi, si Greece loquatur, sic loqui,” goes on to represent at some length 
how the Fathers fully recognised the absence of all such rhetorical ornament in the 
New Testament; and how they fouuded upon the fact a powerful argument in sup- 
port of Christianity. His quotation from 8S. Chrysostom may serve as an illustra- 
tion: “That Father tells us ‘how he once happened to hear a ridiculous dispute be- 
tween a Greek and a Christian on this very subject,—the Greek maintained that 
Paul was utterly illiterate; the Christian, on the other hand, was simple enough to 
affirm that he was more eloquent even than Plato. By which they each of them, 
severally, hurt their own cause. For if Paul was really the more learned of the 
two, the wonder would presently cease how he came to get the better of Plato, and 
to draw all his followers to himself;—since it would wppear to be owing to the 80" 
periority of his talents, not to the Divine grace: whereas if Paul, illiterate as he was, 
could vanquish the learned Plato, such a victory was glorious, and the hand of God 
wanifest in it? [In Ep. i ad Cor. Hom, iii., Ὁ. x. p. 20.]’—Miscell. Works, vol. ii. p 


LECT Ὑ1.}]Ὶ THE FORM OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN. 327 


our own day,’ is based upon a misconception, as well of the na- 
ture of Inspiration, as of the ends designed by God in the com- 
position of the Bible. The Holy Spirit, as we have seen, did 
not employ the human agents whom He had selected to be His 
organs as mere lifeless machines, but as rational beings whose 
genius, and natural temperament, and individual characteristics, 
were penetrated by, and combined with, His guiding influence. 
Nay, it was only by means of these peculiar attributes of each 
sacred writer that Divine Truth could have reached the soul of 
man, as being thus united to a basis which is genuinely human : 
—by such agencies alone could those mysteries ‘‘ which the an- 
gels desire to look into” have been brought home to the universal 
consciousness of mankind, If it be argued that, on such a 
theory, we should still expect to find in Scripture perfection of 
form and of language as the result of human intelligence thus 
divinely inspired ;’—the answer is plain, that here too, as in God’s 
other works, we can never argue from preconceived expectations, 
The method of ὦ priori reasoning, long banished from the science 
of Nature cannot be permitted still to linger in the domain of 
Revelation. As the laws, therefore, according to which the Man- 
ifestation of God* by Nature is unfolded, can only be deduced 
from the information which Nature’s phenomena supply to the 
observer ; so our knowledge as to the method by which His 
Revelation in Scripture has been recorded can be derived solely 
from the statements of the sacred writers themselves, If the 
authors of the Bible inform us that the overruling guidance of 
the Holy Spirit extended so far, and no further; or that it re- 
ferred to such and such matters, and not to others ;—then is it 


99. Of. also the words of 5. Ambrose: “ Negant plerique nostros secundum artem 
scripsisse. Nec nos obnitimur; non enim secundum artem scripserunt, sed secundum 
Gratiam, que super omnem artem est: scripserunt enim que Spiritus iis loqui dabat.” 
—Epist. ad Justum, t. ii. p. 783. 

1 EK. g. in the treatise of Elwert, to which I have already referred (Lecture vi. p. 
253, note 5), published in ‘“ Klaiber’s Studien der evang. Geistlichkeit,” B. mm. H. ii. 
s. ] ff_—my acquaintance with which is derived from Steudel’s essay in the “ Tiibin- 
ger Zeitschrift fur Theol.” for 1832. In Elwert’s treatise, observes Steudel, “the 
preliminary question is proposed—What expectations are to be formed of a written 
document, and of its structure, the authors of which were supernaturally guided in 
the act of writing by the Divine Spirit? In such a document, according to this 
treatise, we should expect perfection of form (Vollkommenheit der Form).”—Uéeber 
Insp. der Apostel, Th. i. s. 116. 

* This is, indeed, in the words of Bacon, still to argue “ Ex analogia hominis, non 
ex analogia universi.” 

3 See supra Lecture i. p. 20, &c 


328 THE COMMISSION TO WRITE. [LECT. VII, 


plain that all anticipations which overlook such statements are, 
in their very nature, without foundation. When 8. Paul, in his 
Epistle to the Corinthian cavillers, concedes that he is ‘‘ rude in 
speech ;” and at the same time appeals to the fact that, not- 
withstanding this his want of polished language, his labors had 
been marked by the Divine favor, and exhibited “all the signs 
of an Apostle,”*—it is clear that he presupposes such an aid of 
the Holy Spirit, in support of those labors, which did not consist 
in transforming his spcech to suit the demands of grammatical 
criticism, or the subtleties of a refined elocution ; but which, by 
the very absence of such effects, had exhibited more fully the 
Divine source of the power that it conferred ;—since that power 
thus proved its independence of all those resources which are 
essential to the acquiring, by human means, an influence over 
one’s fellow-men. How, then, can we require that a writing 
composed by 8. Paul should not exhibit him as “ rude in speech ?” 
or why should the absence of rhetorical embellishment prevent 


1 πὶ δὲ καὶ ἰδιώτης τῷ λόγῳ ἀλλ᾽ ob τῇ γνώσει.---- Cor. xi. 6. 

It may be well to notice here the very unjust censure by the learned Cave of S, 
Jerome’s criticisms upon S. Paul’s style. Having alluded in strong terms to 8. Je- 
rome’s well-known vehemence in controversy, Cave proceeds to add: “Kt quid 
mirum? cum in ipsum ἢ. Paulum Apostolum duram nimis et plane insolentem (?) 
censuram exercere solet. * * * Mitto plura in hominem θεόπνευστον, et Apos- 
tolorum longe eruditissimum durius dicta, ne viri doctissimi et de Ecclesia optime 
meriti manes nimis sollicitare videar.”—AHist. Literaria, Art. ‘Hieronymus.’ Among 
the passages which Cave considers deserving of censure are the following. S. Je- 
rome had just quoted 2 Cor. xi. 6; on which he proceeds,—evidently in answer to 
an objection,—‘ Nos quotiescunque soloecismos, aut tale quid annotavimus, non 
Apostolum pulsamus, ut malevoli criminantur, sed magis Apostoli assertores sumus: 
quod Hebrzeus ex Hebreis, absque Rhetorici nitore sermonis, et verborum compo- 
sitione, et eloquii venustate, nunquam ad fidem Christi totum mundum transducere 
valuisset, nisi evangelizasset eum non in sapientia verbi, sed in virtute Dei. Nam 
et ipse ad Corinthios ait: ‘Et ego, quum venissem ad vos, fratres, veni non in emi- 
nentia verbi aut sapientiz, annuncians vobis testimonium Dei [1 Cor. ii. 1]’”"— 
Comm. in Ep. ad Eph., α. iii. lib. ii. t. vii. p. 587,—a passage obviously identical in 
spirit with those quoted, p. 326, note. Again: “Non jaxta humilitatem, ut pleri- 
que zstimant, sed vere [Paulus] dixerat: ‘ Ht si imperitus sermone, non tamen scien- 
tia.’ "— Comm. in Ep. ad Titum, c. i. ibid., p. 689. 8. Jerome gives an example of 
what he means when explaining Gal. vi. 1 (Αδελφοΐ, ὑμεῖς οἱ πνευματικοὶ καταρτίζετε 
τὸν τοιοῦτον * * * σκοπῶν σεαυτόν, κ. τ. A)—‘ Qui putant Paulum juxta 
humilitatem, et non vere dixisse, ‘ et siimperitus sermone non tamen scientia,’ defends 
ant hujus loci consequentiam. Debuit quippe secundum ordinem dicere: ‘ Vos qui 
spirituales instruite hujusmodi * * * considerantes vosmet ipsos,’ &c. et non plu- 
rali inferre numerum singularem. Hebreeus igitur ex Hebreeis, et qui esset in ver- 
naculo sermone doctissimus, profundos sensus aliena lingua exprimere non valebat, 
nee curabat magnopere de verbis, guwm senswm haberet in tuto.”— Comm. in Ep. ad 
Gail., ibid., p. 520. 

2 “Tn nothing am I behind the very chiefest Apostles, though I be nothing. 
Truly the signs of an Apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and 
wonders, and mighty deeds.” —xii. 11, 12. 


LECT. VIl.] THE FORM OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN, 329 


our acknowledging the immediate Divine causality under which 
the Epistles of the great Apostle were composed ?? 

It has, however, been further objected that this reflection 
from the pages of Scripture of the peculiar characters and dis- 
tinct individuality of the various writers leaves ample room for 
the admission of human fallibility. Such an objection mani- 
festly assumes that the same truth is incapable of being pre- 
sented under different forms, without contracting thereby a cer- 
tain coloring of error, or losing its invigorating power. But so 
far is this assumption from being valid or just, that we are able 
of ourselves to perceive the obvious fitness and necessity, from 
the very nature of man, of this variety in the mode of convey- 
ing Divine knowledge. We find that Christ Himself communi- 
cated, under various aspects, the one Truth which He came to 
reveal ; and that He imparted to His words that power with 
which they come home to every heart, by diversifying the form 
in which He gave them utterance: just as He disclosed His 
Godhead more fully, by manifesting His Omnipotence in mir- 
acles not always the same. So little support, indeed, does this 
variety of form lend to the notion that there was a corresponding 
variety in the mode of apprehending Divine Truth by the authors 
of Scripture, and a consequent possibility of error,—that the 
contrary inference is the only one admissible. We here perceive 
each inspired writer, without any toilsome effort after some pre- 
determined type of language or of style, at once bringing home 
to each conscience his sacred message: the Divine nature of 
which appears the more plainly from its not being confined to 
one order of expression, or running in one narrow channel; but 
rather in its mastery over all such externals, whereby it has be- 


1 “Divine truth hath its humiliation and exinanition, as well as its exaltation. 
Divine truth becomes many times in Scripture incarnate, debasing itself to assume 
our rude conceptions, that so it might converse more freely with us, and infuse its 
»wn Divinity into us. God having been pleased herein to manifest Himself not 
nore jealous of His own glory than He is (as I may say) zealous of our good. 
Nos non habemus aures, sicut Deus habet linguam.’ If He should speak the lan- 
giage of eternity, who could understand Him, or interpret His meaning? * * * 
Truth is content when it comes into the world, to wear our mantles, to learn our lan- 
guage, to conform itself as it were to our dress and fashions: it affects not that state 
or fastus which the disdainful rhetorfcian sets out his style withal, ‘Non Tarentinis, 
aut Siculis hee scribimus;’ but it * * * becomes all things to all men, as every 
sor of truth should do, for their good. Which was well observed in that old cabal 
istica. axiom among the Jews, ‘Lumen supernum nunquam descendit sine indu- 
mento.’”—J. Smith ‘of Cambridge). O° Prophecy, ch. i. 


330 THE COMMISSION TO WRIPE. [LECT. vm. 


come the common property of the human race. No truth can 
be grasped under the same exact form by every intelligence :— 
witness the varied illustrations, borrowed from every walk of hu- 
man life, or every line of human industry, or every branch of 
human science, which a skilful teacher adopts in order to render 
his meaning intelligible to each class of his hearers. From this 
common fact we learn how necessary it was that in the instru- 
ments selected by the Holy Spirit to convey the Truth to man, 
an analogous variety of character should prevail. Thus only 
could provision be made to meet the widely different require- 
ments of human intellect and human susceptibility : thus only 
could the light of Divine knowledge be brought, in every variety 
of circumstance, to bear upon the ever-changing aspects of man- 
kind.’ 

1 In reply to the preceding objection, I have availed myself of the remarks of 
Bteudel, in the second part of the essay already quoted—a. 21 


LECTURE VIII. 


RECAPITULATION.—OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 


“Quam non sibi adversantur iidem Scriptores quatuor ostendendum est. Huve enim 
eolent (illi, scil., imperita temeritate calumniis appetentes, ut eis veracis narrationis 
derogent fidem), quasi palmare suze vanitatis objicere, quod ipsi Evangeliste inter 


seipsos dissentiant.” 
S. Aucustin., De Consensu Evangelist., lib. 1. vii. 


“P-imum te sciro volumus, omnem sanctam Scripturam non posse sibi esse con- 
trariam.~ 
S. Hizron., Paule et Hust. ad Marcel., Ep. xlvi. 


Ὡς yap αἱ διάφοροι τοῦ ψαλτηρίου ἢ τῆς κιθάρας χορδαὶ, ὧν ἑκάστη ἴδιόν Tiva φθόγγον 
καὶ δοκοῦντα μὴ ὅμοιον εἶναι τῷ τῆς ἑτέρας ἀποτελεῖ, νομίζοντα: τῷ ἀμούσῳ καὶ μὴ 
ἐπισταμένῳ λόγον μουσικῆς συμφωνίας διὰ τὴν ἀνομοιότητα τῶν φθόγγων ἀσύμφωνοι 
τυγχάνειν" Οὕτως οἱ μὴ ἐπιστάμενοι ἀκούειν τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν ταῖς ἱεραῖς γραφαῖς ἁρμο- 
γίας, οἴονται ἀνάρμοστον εἶναι τῇ καινῇ τὴν παλαιὰν, ἢ τῷ νόμῳ τοὺς προφῆτας, ἢ τὰ 
Εὐαγγέλια ἀλλήλοις, ἢ τὸν ᾿Απόστολον τῷ Εὐαγγελίῳ, ἢ ἑαυτῷ, i) τοῖς ᾿Αποστόλοις. 

ORIGENES, Comm. in S. Mattheum, t. ii. 


“Ego enim fateor caritati tuz, SOLIS EIS Scripturarum libris, qui jam Canonici ap- 
pellantur, didici hune timorem honoremque deferre, ut nullum eorum auctorem scri- 
bendo aliquid errasse f-missime credam. Ac si aliquid in eis offendero literis, quod 
videatur contrarium veritati, nihil aliud, quam vel mendosum esse codicem, vel inter- 
pretem non assecutum esse quod dictum est, vel me minime intellexisse, non am- 
‘weram.”’ 

8. Auaustin., Ad Hieron., Ep. lxxxii. 


LECTURE VIII. 


RECAPITULATION—OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED, 


HEAVEN AND EARTH SHALL PASS AWAY, BUT MY WORDS SHALL NOT PASS AWAF.:e: 
S. Matt. xxiv. 35. 


In considering the subject of Inspiration in general, a promi- 
nent feature of the theory advocated in the preceding Discourses 
has been the co-existence and combination of the two elements 
engaged in the composition of the Bible :—the originating in- 
fluence of God, and the subordinate agency of man. The phe- 
nomena which the Universe presents to view have guided the 
Philosopker to a knowledge of that wondrous mechanism, where- 
by ‘‘seed-time and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and 
winter, and day and night,” keep the appointed times of their 
coming: while the daily-advancing labors of Science open new 
vistas along which the eye can gaze upon the ever active energies 
of Nature, and discern, more and more clearly, the ends which 
they respectively subserve, The phenomena which the Bible 
presents to the Theologian enable him, in like manner, to trace 
in its pages the course of the Divine operations ; and to develop 
more fully those laws according to which the influence of the 
Holy Spirit has been exerted in its production. This topic has 
been discussed at some length, and the results have been stated 
as the inquiry proceeded. 

It has been pointed out how God, from time to time, during 
the successive stages of Revelation, set apart certain individuals 
to be the exponents of His will; and how the agents chosen by 
Him were selected in consequence of such natural characteristics 
as qualified them for their task, and on account of their peculiar 
fitness, in other respects, to perform the several duties thus <cm- 


334 RECAPITULATION. [LECT. Vim 


mitted to them.’ We have seen how Scripture, as a document 
intended for all mankind, has been adapted to the complex sus- 
ceptibilities of our race, not only by its presenting, under differ- 
ent aspects, the one Great Truth which it unfolds ;* but also by 
that marvellous exclusion of those subjective influences and per- 
sonal feelings which color the language of profane history :*—the 
sacred writers depicting facts as with the pencil of Nature, and 
thus bringing home to the mind, as it were, the reality itself. 
We have noticed too, how the writings which thus convey the 
Divine Revelation, and perpetuate the history upon which that 
Revelation rests, have been, in every age, distinctly ascribed to 
the influence of Inspiration ; ,and how it results from both inter- 
nal and external evidence that “‘ holy men of God spake as they 
were moved by the Holy Ghost.’* Attention has also been di- 
rected to the contents of the Books thus composed ; and the 
question has been considered why such facts were recorded rather 
than others, and what was the principle of their selection.‘ 

The importance of this last feature of the inquiry is so great, 
that it will be useful to glance at it once more. 

8, Paul, when entering upon his grand exposition of Christian 
Faith, introduces the statement of Moses, ‘“ Abraham believed 
God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness’”’—with the 
explanatory remark, ‘“ Now it was not written for his sake alone 
that it was imputed to him ; but for us also.”” This illustration 
of the great doctrine before him, as well as the Apostle’s re- 
peated use, for the same purpose, of the words of the prophet 
Habakkuk, ‘“‘ The just shall live by faith,”* denotes how thor- 
oughly the writers of the New Testament believed the former 
Scriptures to be impregnated with the influence of the Spizit :— 
a belief which is equally exhibited by their allusions to the Old 
Testament history ; according to which—to take a single illus- 
tration—we find adduced as an element of Christian instruction 
the events preserved from the circumstances attending the Hx- 
odus of the Israelites. On this principle it is that we must ever 

1 Lecture i. pp. 37, 38; Lecture iv.; Lecture vi. p. 265. 

3 Lecture vii. p. 329. * Lecture v. p. 228, &. 
4 Lecture ii. ; Lecture vi. 5 Lecture iii. p. 108, ὅσ. 
® Gen. xv. 6, as quoted Rom. iv. 3; Gal. iii. 6. 

7 Rom. iv. 23—ovx ἐγράφη δὲ 8¢ αὐτὸν μόνον * * * GAAG καὶ δι ἡμᾶς. 


® Hab. ii. 4; quoted Rom. i. 17; Gal. iii. 11; Heb. x. 38. 
51 Cor. x. See supra, Lecture iii. p. 109, &e. 


LECT. VIII. | OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 335 


regard as both unfounded and superficial that view of Inspiration 
which distinguishes, in the sacred narrative, between matters of 
fact and matters of doctrine.’ In the Christian Faith matters of 
fact exhibit and convey doctrines ; while doctrines are presented 
to us as matters of fact. Christ’s Birth, Death, and Resurrection, 
are the most sublime of doctrines. That he is coessential and 
coequal with the Father ; His atonement, and His bestowal of 
spiritual gifts, we receive as matters of fact. Nay, Scripture ex- 
pressly informs us that those features, whether of the Old or the 
New Testament, which at first sight might seem destitute of 
doctrinal significance,’ continually express the highest truths of 
Revelation. We know, for example, that the record of Christ’s 


1 Pére R. Simon, speaking of H. Holden’s assertion of this theory (see Appendix 
ΟἹ. observes: “Il ett eté bon qu’ il efit donné quelques exemples de ce qu’ il entend 
par les matieres qui ne sont point purement de doctrine ; ou qui u’ y ont point une en- 
tiere relation.”—Aist. Crit. du N. T., ch. xxiv. p. 295. A writer in “The Christian 
Remembrancer” for Julv. 1849 (p. 231), acutely observes that this view of the inspired 
writings “is preciseiy that which the Roman Church maintains with regard to the 
authority of the existing Church in successive ages.” * * ¥* If fer example, 
“the Church declares ex cathedra that a certain doctrine was maintained by Origen, 
and that it is heretical: the latter of these declarations rests, according to their belief, 
upon a Divine, the former upon a merely human, authority. Whether or not it would 
be consistent with the principles of the Roman Church to extend this distinction to 
the writers of Holy Scripture, and to maintain as de fide that their religion and doc- 
trinal assertions are from God; admitting, meanwhile, that upon other questions they 
were left to the unaided light of fallible human testimony and human intellect,—we 
do not here inquire. Such at best must be the view maintained by those Protestant 
philosophers who reject any fact really recorded by the inspired writers upon any 
subject whatever, while at the same time they admit their inspiration upon matters 
of religion.” I have already alluded (Lecture iii. p. 108) to Twesten’s assertion of this 
distinction. Having referred to the ‘mechanical’ theory of Inspiration (see Lecture 
i. p. 37), the next ‘‘excess” which Twesten condemns is that which extends the ex- 
ercise of the Divine influence, in an equal degree, “to all and everything in Holy 
Scripture, without making any distinction between the different components ;—be- 
tween Old and New Testament, Law and Gospel, historical and prophetical ;—be- 
tween the writings of the Apostles and those of their disciples [see swpra, Lecture 
v. p. 218] ;—between expressions which belonged to the fulfilling of their Commission 
and which had for their object the promotion of the Kingdom of God, and those which 
occur merely incidentally and in another view; or, further, without distinguishing be- 
tween the different elements of each statement;—between words and thoughts;— 
between doctrine and history ;—between the religious contents and the garb in which 
such contents are presented to us.”— Vorlesungen, B. i. s. 419. 

With such a statement may be advantageously contrasted the following remark 
of Sack: ‘‘There can be no mention here of a separation between what is historical 
and doctrinal, as if the former could not be written by Inspiration. For since Reve- 
sation is pre-eminently and always an historical fact [see swpra, Lecture i, p. 20, note 3], 
it could not have been committed to writing at all merely as doctrine, and not in con- 
nexion with the history of the Church.”—Apologetik, s. 420. 

* A profound observation of Bishop Bytler, which applies to God’s Revelation in 
Scripture as well as in Nature, seems to go to the root of this matter: ‘“ We arn 
greatly ignorant how far things are considered by the Author of Nature under ths 
single notion of means and ends; so as that it may be said, this is merely an end, 
and that merely means, in His regard.”— Analogy, part τι. ch. iv. 


836 RECAPITULATION, [LECT. vil. 


acts is as important as that of His words. He taught by tne 
former, not less than by the latter :* and for this reason alone, 
the narrative of His earthly life could not have been excluded 
from the statement of His doctrines ;—even were it conceivable 
(which it is not) that an historically faithful account of His say- 
ings could be imparted without including His acts. His miracles 
are themselves expressions of His dignity and exalted Nature ; 
and, at the same time, typical representations of His invisible 
agency. The doctrine of the Redeemer Himself, and of His 
Kingdom, is involved in them: most of them unfolding, together 
with their immediate design of being deeds of beneficence, and 
pledges of his grace and power, the further design of conveying 
instruction under the form of symbolical acts. Thus 8, John ex- 
plains how the change of water into wine was a “ manifestation 
of the glory” of Jesus ;’ that the feeding of the “five thousand” 
was not merely an intimation of His beneficence, but also a token 
of the grace to be bestowed ;* that the healing of “‘ the man born 
blind” symbolized how “for judgment Christ was come into this 
world, that they which see not might see ; and that they which 
see might be made blind.”* From all this we learn that “‘ the 
voice from the excellent glory,” at the Transfiguration, was not 
the only Manifestation of His essential Godhead. Hach of His 
miraculous acts was but the natural expression of the higher 
reality concealed beneath His human form: and hence, in the 
Epistle to the Hebrews, Miracles in general, whether wrought 
immediately by Christ Himself, or, after His Ascension, by means 


1 See some remarks of H. W. J. Thiersch, ‘‘ Versuch zur Herstell. des hist. Stand- 
puncts fiir die Kritik der N. T. Schriften,” s. 123; who, having laid down in the first 
place, the principle—“that an isolation of Christ’s sayings from the facts which ac- 
companied them was partly unnatural, partly inconceivable and impracticable”—goes 
on to give “a special proof” that it was Divinely appointed, and designed by Christ 
Himself, that the minutest facts connected with the close of His life upon earth should 
be included in the Gospel narrative. This proof is supplied by the saying recorded 
in S. Matt. xxvi. 13. When Mary had anointed the Lord in Bethany, and the act 
was censured by His disciples, His reproof was accompanied with the words: “‘ Verily 
I say unto you, Wheresoever this Gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall 
also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.” 

2 “This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth 
His glory.” —S. John, ii. 11. 

3. “Ye seek Me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the 
losves, and were filled. Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat 
wrich endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of Man shall give unto you."—= 
8. John, vi. 26, 27. 

4 §. John, ix. 39. 


LECT. VIII.] OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED, 337 


of His Spirit in His Disciples, are termed ‘the powers of the 
world to come.” 

The principle involved in the foregoing remarks,—namely, 
that the narrative portion of the Bible, whether contained in the 
historical books of the Old Testament,’ or in the Gospels ana 
Acts of the Apostles, is to be looked upon as stamped with the 
same infallible truth as the account of Christ’s discourses, or of 
what are, strictly speaking, revelations, or of doctrinal teaching 
in general,—this principle is fully borne out by many character- 
istics of the inspired record. That even the form and language 
in which its truths are expressed bear the impress of its Divine 
origin no less plainly than those truths themselves, may be in- 
ferred, with absolute certainty, from the nature of the reasoning 
employed by our Lord and His Apostles ; in which it is invariably 
assumed that the words of Scripture are no less Divine than the 
doctrines which they convey. The following examples will illus- 
trate this assertion. 

Christ proves the great doctrine of the Resurrection of the 
dead from the tense of the substantive verb, Jehovah had de- 
clared to Moses, “1 am the God of Abraham, and the God of 
Isaac, and the God of Jacob ;” from which our Lord at once con- 


1 Δυνώμεις μέλλοντος aiwvoc—Heb. vi. 5; “a description (observes Yhiersch) 
which is calculated to serve as a just point of entering upon a genuine Biblical 
theory of Miracles.”—loc. cit., s 146. In illustration of the use of αἰὼν μέλλων, 
Ritschl (“ Die Entst. der altkath. Kirche,” s. 56) quotes: ‘‘ Propalavit Dominus per 
prophetas, quee preeterierunt; et futwrorum nobis dedit initia scire."—Ep. S. Barnab., 
eap. i. 

? Christ (S. Matt. xii. 3-7) argues from the seemingly unimportant incident of 
David, ‘‘when he was an hungred,” eating “the shewbread, which it was not lawful 
for him to eat * * * but only for the priests:’—which allusion he combines 
(ver. 5) with an inference drawn from the necessary performance of the Sacerdotal 
functions on the Sabbath-day, “Have ye not read in the Law, how that on the Sab- 
bath days the Priests in the Temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?’—and 
hence proves that the Law and its ordinances possessed a spirtual meaning which the 
Pharisees, notwithstanding their familiarity with its literal sense, had not as yet ap- 
prehended. This lesson He shows here (as He had already done, ch. ix. 13) was 
contained in the Divine principle enunciated by the prophet of old, “I desired mercy, 
and not sacrifice.”—Hos. vi. 6. (Cf Butler’s Analogy,” Part U0. ch.i) Again: He 
teaches that the grand doctrine of the passing away of the Kingdom of God from 
the Jews to the Gentiles had been foreshadowed by the exhibition of miraculous 
power on the part of Elijah and Elisha in the cases of the widow of Sarepta, and of 
Naaman the Syrian—s. Luke, iv. 25-27. Of too, how 5. Paul at Antioch reasons 
from the Old Testament history in general (Acts, xiii. 17-23) ; how he points out that 
“God hath not cast away His people whom He foreknew,” by adducing an incident 
in the life of Elijah (Rom. xi. 2-4); and how in Heb. xi. he recapitulates the eventful 
annals of former days,—even those “οἵ Gedeon and of Barak, of Samson and of 
Jephtha,”—the foundation of all such reasoning being the great truth, “ Whatsoever 
things were written aforetime (ὅσα προεγράφη) were written for our learning.”—Rom. 


xv. 4 
22 


338 RECAPITULATION. [LECT. Vil 


vludes: ‘God 1s not the God of the dead, but of the living.” 
Again, He reasons with the Jews as follows: “Is it not written 
in your Law, I said ye are gods? If He called them gods unto 
whom the word of God came,—and the Scripture cannot be 
broken,—say ye of Him whom the Father hath sanctified and 
sent into the world, Thou blasphemest ; because I said I am the 
Son of God ?””—where our Lord founds His whole argument on 
the use by the Psalmist of the single term, ELOHIM, ‘‘gods.” In 
the Pentateuch also, the representatives of Jehovah had been 
diguified with this name :—Moses was so called, as representing 
God to Aaron ; he was in like manner called “a god to Pha- 
raoh ;”* and in this same sense, the title is, more than once, ap- 
plied to those who filed judicial offices in Israel.“ From this 


1 §. Matt. xxii. 32; ef. Exod. iii. 6,—where ‘“‘ the addition of the name, ‘God of 
Isaac and God of Jacob,’ can only mean that the genuine character of the Abraham- 
itic life has been transmitted solely through Isaac (not through Ishmael), and through 
Jacob (not through Esau).”"—Olshausen, Comm., B.i.s, 818. Cf also Gen, xxviii. 13. 
Even Meyer and De Wette refrain from pressing here their theory of ‘“ Rabbinical 
exposition” (cf Dr. Bleek’s remarks quoted, Lecture vii. p. 303, note’). Meyer ob- 
serves: “The view of Strauss and Hase, that this reasoning contains merely Rabbini- 
cal dialectics, is in itself arbitrary; mistakes the justice and the truth of the conse- 
quence drawn by Jesus from the passage, and is derogatory to His character and 
dignity.” On the contrary, he adds: “The quite similar reasoning of Manasse f Isr. 
De Resurr. i. 10, 6, seems to have been derived from our passage.’—Comm. in loc., 
5. 363, De Wette writes: “Not by means of Rabbinical dialectics, but from a pro- 
found apprehension of the sense of Scripture, is the continued existence of the 
Patriarchs proved * * * Jesus does not go beyond the leading idea; since 
elsewhere dvuctao.g=Cojy—Rom. vi. 8, 10; 1 Cor. xv. 21 ff£.”—Comm., in loc., 
8. 236. 

* §, John, x. 34, See Ps. Ixxxii. 6—‘‘I have said ye are gods (O°75N); and all 
of you are children of the Most High (j75» 722)"—the expression, “1 have said,” 
referring to that class of passages “in which the magistracy, and in particular the 
judicial office, is designated by the name Elohim.”—Hengstenberg, in loc. (Clarke’s 
For. Theol. Lib., vol. iii. p. 37) :—see also the following notes. 

ΣΟΙ. τγ. 16: ville 

4. Thus among the laws relating to the Hebrew servant we read: “Then his mas- 
ter shall bring him unto the judges—Elohim (O‘75NN-5N ὙΣῚΝ 1°71)” —Exod. xxi. 6. 
In this sense the word Elohim occurs three times in eh. xxii. 8, 9; where at ver. 28 
we again read, “Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the rulers of thy people.” 
C£ Deut. i. 16, 17 (“I charged your judges (Q2;0Dw) saying, * * * Ye shall 
not be afraid of the face of man, for the judgment is God’s”—o-n>x>) ; Deut. xix. 17; 
and especially 2 Chron. xix. 6, 7 (Jehoshaphat “said to the judges, Take heed what 
ye do, for ye judge not for man, but for the Lord, who is with you in the judgment.”) 
Hengstenberg further compares 1 Chron. xxix. 23, ‘Solomon sat upon the throne of 
Jehovah —adding: “It was in connexion with the office of judge that the stamp of 
Divinity was most conspicuous; inasmuch as that office led the people, under +he 
foreground of an humble earthly tribunal, to contemplate the background of a lotty 
Divine judgment (p. 31). Hence the reproof of the wicked judges contained in this 
Psalm is introduced with the words: “God (77>) standeth in the congregation of 
the mighty; He judgeth among the gods (a°7>x.)”—ver. 1. Olshausen refers to 
Exod. xviii. 15, as giving the clearest information on the subject. “In this passage 
it is said: ‘ And Moses said unto his father-in-law, Because the people come unto me 
to inquire of God.’ These words are to be understood of the kingly and judicia, 


AROT. VII | OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 338 


\lerived signification of tne word Christ argues by rising to its 
proper force, and higher iniport ; and He explains the fitness of 
{his His more profound use of the passage by the remark, ‘‘ The 
Scripture cannot be broken :”—that is, each expression of Holy 
Writ must possess a depth of meaning which cannot be reached 
by confining ourselves to ite s‘ugle primary object, or mere al- 
lusive application.’ 

This Divine character of the language which the writers of 
Scripture have employed is nowhere more clearly denoted than 
by a passage in the Epistle to the Galatians: “To Abraham 
and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, 
as of many ; but as of one: and to thy seed, which is Christ,’”” 


activity of Moses; and we therefore see that God is Himself properly understood, 
according to the genuine Theocratic view [cf supra, Lecture iv. p. 154], as the true 
King and Judge of Israel, who merely has His organs through whom He reveals 
Himself. [Here Olshausen notes: “ Magistrates are not called ‘gods’ because an office 
has been outwardly eutrusted to them by God; but because they are said to be or- 
gans of the Divine will, which they must be, even although their disposition be im- 
pure (cf. the case of Caiaphas, John, xi. 49-52)”]. ‘‘ That the Redeemer desires the 
passsige in Ps, lxxxii. 6, to be thus understood, is clearly shown by the words: προὸς 
οὖς ὁ λόγος τοι Θεοῦ éyéevero—a formula parallel to the well-known phrase, 137 WW" 
b> mm (cf. supra, Lecture iii, p. 130, &c.], by which phrase, as is well known, the 
point of time is described when communications were received by the prophets from 
abovo. * * * All such persons [viz., Magistrates, Prophets, Men illuminated by 
God] are called sons of God, because God's power and Essence wrought in them, and 
were revealed through them. * * * In order to strengthen the argument, aad 
to make it obligatory on His hearers, Jesus adds: kai οὐ δύναται λυθῆναι ἡ γραφή. 
The idea of λυθῆναι is to be taken here as in Matt. v. 17, and Gal. ii, 18:—the 
Scripture, as the expressed will of the unchangeable God, is itself unchangeable and 
indissoluble.”— Comm. in loc., B. ii. s. 278. Rudelbach (“ Zeitschrift,” 1841, H. iv. 8. 
27) points out that the conclusion is here drawn from the improper, or allusive, to the 
proper application (not merely a minort ad majus): its force resting on the principle, 
that “ otherwise a single word of Scripture—the o°7)x of the Psalmist—would be 
deprived of its essence and its power.” 

1 Analogous to this argument of Christ from the words of Scripture is His mode 
of reasoning from Ps. ex. 1; ‘‘ How then doth David in Spirit call Him Lord, saying, 
The Lord [Jehovah] said unto my Lord [72785], Sit Thou on My right hand, till I 
make thine enemies Thy footstool? If David then call Him Lord (Ki οὖν Aavid 
καλεῖ Abrov κύριο νὴ, how is He his Son ?’—S. Matt. xxii. 43-45. Here He plainly 
argues from the use of the word 7\1N==lord or master (e. g. Joseph says that He had 
been made “lord” of Pharaoh’s house, Gen. xlv. 8; and Jacob calls Esau "37x, Gen. 
xxxiii 8]. Were it possible that this expression had been, or could have been, em- 
ployed erroneously or improperly by the Psalmist, any argument such as Christ here 
urged ;ainst the Pharisees would be without point or force. “If David,” writes 
Tiillner, “ could have erred in the werds which he employed, no certain conclusion 
o¢ ud te thence inf τὶ 3d; it were possible that he had falsely described magistrates as 
a és, aid the Mess: & νὰ his lord.”—Die gottl. Hingebung, 8. 419. ΟΣ also supra, Lec- 
ture v. p. 201. 

2 Τῇ δὲ ᾽Αβ. ἐῤῥέθ «αἱ ἐπαγγ. καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ. οὐ λέγει" Καὶ τοῖς om Ep 
pacer, ὡς ἐπὲ πολλων, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἐφ᾽ ἑνός Καὶ τῷ τπέρματί σου, i, ἐστιν Χριστός. 
—Gal. 1.16. (Cf Ἴρττϑυ--αϑη.- xvii. 8; xxviii) ὃ: LXX.—xai τῷ στέρματί cov.) 
Olshaus.n refers to Gen. xxii. 18; xxvi.4; x¥ i.13, "4: making Gen xxii 18 
the spe! ‘a. object of the Apostle’s allusion. 


340 RECAPITULATION, [LECT. Vili 


Here 8. Paul, without making an express quotation, confines 
himself to the exposition of a single word,’ founding his argument 
on the force of the singular number. His object is to point out 
the deep sense concealed under the form of this promise to the 
Patriarch. As there was but one chosen race sprung from Abra- 
ham, one covenant-people of the promise :—in other words, as 
not all the offspring of Abraham’s body were heirs of the bless- 


ing, but the posterity of Isaac alone ; on a similar principle, ar- 
gues the Apostle, “the blessing of Abraham” comes now too, 
not upon his mere bodily descendants, as such, but upon those 
who, whether they be “‘ Jews or Greeks,” ‘‘ are One in Christ ;” 
and who, ‘‘if they be Christ’s are therefore Abraham’s seed, and 
heirs according to the promise.” 


1 yri—=onépua—a collective term, signifying seed, race, posterity ; and which S. 
Paul does not mean to contrast with the plural, o->71,—in which form the word oe- 
curs but once in the Old Testament, where it has the determinate sense of “ grain,” 
‘ seeds of corn:” “ΗΘ will take the tenth of your seed ;” (1 Sam. viii. 15—cf. too, Dan 
1, 12, 16, where in its Chaldee form it denotes ‘‘ pulse”),—but, on the contrary, founds 
his argument on the collective force of the term in the singular; drawing the distine: 
tion between σπέρμα, posterity, and σπέρματα, posterities. That is, he explains how 
God’s promise applied to the line of Abraham’s posterity through Isaac; not to his 
descendants generally, whether derived through Isaac or Ishmael indifferently (cf. 
supra, p. 338, note 1). In his exposition of this passage, Tholuck (‘‘ Das A. T. im N. 
ΤΙ 5. 51 ff.) points out that this use of Σ΄ as a collective term is one familiar to S. 
Paul, who explains the words of Gen. xxi. 12, “‘ In Isaac shall thy seed be called,” 
as meaning “the children of God” —év ᾿Ισαὰκ κληζϑήσονταί σοι σπέρμα" Tour’ ἔστιν͵ 
ov τὰ τέκνα τῆς σαρκός, ταῦτα τέκνα τοῦ Ocot—Rom. ix. 7,8; ef. Heb. xi. 18. 

* This explanation (that of Tholuck and Olshausen—Bengel’s is somewhat differ- 
ent) is founded upon the principle laid downin the words: “There is neither Jew 
nor Greek * * * FOR YE ARE ALL ONE IN CHRIst JEsuS. And if ye be Chrisi’s, 
then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise’—Gal. iii. 28, 29. 
Hence Χριστός (ver. 16) is put for the community of believers, who are ‘‘ His body,” 
and of whom He is the Head (cf. ‘ We are members of His Body, of His Flesh, and 
of His Bones’’—EHph. v. 30; see, too, ch. i. 23; iv. 12; and 1 Cor. xii. 12, 21.) This 
exposition is further confirmed by the continuation of the argument, “ Now we, breth- 
ren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise,” &c.—Gal. iv. 28, &e, ; see last note. 
The Apostle elsewhere explains the true force of the promises to Abraham. The 
“seed” are they “ who walk in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham ;” and 
“the promise” is “sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the Law, but 
to that also which is of the faith of Abraham.”—Rom. iv. 12, 16. This exposition, 
writes Tholuck, “the Jew himself must concede the more willingly, since it του] 
prove too much, even in his view, were the prediction to embrace unconditionally 
every descendant of Abraham:—even he would desire to exclude the line through 
Ishmael, and that through Hsau.”—oc. cit., s. 58. With reference to the objection 
that the force thus given to the singular of σπέρμα could not have been designedly 
attached to it by the author of Genesis, Olshausen observes: ‘‘ The Apostles, like al 
the other writers of the New Testament, had, in the illumination of the Holy Spirit 
the fall authority to pass beyond the standpoint of consciousness in the Old Testa: 
ment writer [ef Lecture v. p. 197, &c.], and to unveil the innermost truth of the 
thought according to the sense of Him Who promised and foretold. If, therefore, 
Jewish learning also has made similar applications of Old Testament passages, stil 
the distinction of the Apostolic mode of procedure from the Rabbinical always con 

‘ated in this, that the learned Jews acted merely according to the arbitrary manner 


LECT, VIII. | OBJECTION‘ ¢’)NSIDERED. 34) 


To the foregoing examples must be added a single illustration 
of that Divine superintendence which guided the authors of 
Scripture in their selection of expressions from which, as we have 
just seen, such important truths could be inferred. Christ’s 
title, “‘ Son of Man,” constantly recurs in each of the four Gos- 
pels. It is never applied to Him, however, by any other than 
Himself, so long as He walked on earth. On one occasion, after 
He was glorified, it is given Him by 8. Stephen ,* but throughout 
she Apostolic Epistles the title is not once to be found. The con- 
clusion is obvious: and the marked agreement of the sacred 
writers, even in this single particular, is a manitest proof that 
they have written under the same Divine influence.’ In two 
passages of the Apocalypse,* moreover, the title ‘Son of Man” 
is empioyed ; there being in both cases an obvious reference, ac- 

‘cording to 8. John’s practice in that book, to the great prediction 
of Daniel : “1 saw in the night visions, and behold one like the 
Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven.” And, in continu- 
ation of what has been just said, it particularly is worthy of re- 
mark, that while a Hebrew phrase, which the English Version 
similarly translates, ‘son of man,” is of frequent occurrence (as 
in the book of Ezekiel), the form of expression employed by 
Daniel is to Le met with in no other portion of the Old Testa- 
ment,” 

of human beings by which their acuteness often degenerated into mere conceits ;— 
while the Apostles, gi “ded by the Spirit, ever unveiled infallibly the true sense of 
the predicting Spirit (2? Pet. i. 20, 21).”—Comm. in loc. B. iv. s. 65. Cf. supra, Lec- 
ture vii. p. 309, &e. 

10 Ὑἱὸς TOY ’AvOp<::ov. Bishop Middleton observes on S. John, v. 27, where 
both articles are omitted ‘If it be thought remarkable * * * that υἱὸς ἀνθρώ- 
που, a8 applied to Christ, τιν first occurs without the articles, it is sufficient to answer 
that now, for the first time, has Christ asserted His claim to the title: in all other 
places He has assumed it.” Meyer, in loc., considers that “υἱὸς ἀνθρ. ist als Nomen 
propr. behandelt, daher artikellos.” 

2 Acts, vii. 56. 

3 “ Apostolorum vel in hoc uno idiomate convenientia ostendit eos eodem divino 
motu scripsisse.”’—Bengelii Gnomon, in S. Matt. xvi. 13. 

4 Rev. i. 13; xiv. 14:—in both cases the articles are wanting. 

5 Dan. vii. 18, where we read—v3x 73. The phrase in Ezekiel is D7N7j3. (In 
Pgalm exliy. 3, D2N772 occurs, cf. Ps. viii. 5. We also find mx~22—e. g. Psalm xlix. 
2. The verb wix=xeger male affectus fuit, May we not hence (‘‘ Agritudinis et 
morbi significatu, qui inest in rad. ΘΝ," &c.—Gesenius én voc.) infer that this phrase, 
thus appropriated to the Messiah, conveys the idea of the “ Man (vx) of sorrows’— 
Isai. 1111. 3? and therefore conclude that, until after His period of humiliation, no one 
was permitted to apply to the Lord a title thus indicative of his exinanition: but that 
when He had resumed His own glory, the restriction was removed—as in the cases 


af S. Stephen and 5. John? 
To the foregoing examples, which so clearly exhibit the superintendence exer- 


842 RECAPITULATION, [LECT. VIIL 


Thus far I have endeavored to lay down principles from which 
the Divine authority, the infallible certainty, and the entire 
truthfulness, of every part of the Scriptures must necessarily re- 
sult. ΤῸ this conclusion many exceptions have been taken ; and 
with some general observations on the nature and foundation 
of such exceptions these Discourses shall fitly terminate. From 
the outset I have endeavoured, as far as it was possible, to keep 
the inquiry as to Inspiration distinct from the many kindred 
questions, relating to the Bible, with which it has been so con- 
tinually interwoven in the course of modern criticism ;* and I 
shall now content myself with stating the grounds on which I 
conceive the weakness of the objections to which I have alluded 
may in all cases be exposed :—to enter with any particularity on 
so vast a field would, it is clear, necessitate a discussion on almost 
every topic connected with the Evidences of Christianity. In u- 
lustration of the grounds on which I thus rely, I purposely select 
those examples which are the most obvious, and the most fa- 


cised over the language of Scripture, the following may be added. In order to prove 
that through the One Son, others, too, should be exalted to be the sons of God, &% 
Paul insists upon the single term ‘‘ brethren” in Ps, xxii. 22: ‘For both He that 
sanctifieth, and they who are sanctified, are all of one; for which cause (δι᾽ ἣν αἰτίαν) 
He is not ashamed [even under the Old Covenant] to call them brethren; saying, I 
will declare Thy name unto My brethren.”—Hebr. ii. 11, 12. Cf. our Lord’s argu- 
ment frorn Gen. i. 27, and v. 2; in S. Matt. xix. 4, ἄς. Again, 5. Mark and 5, Luks 
thus’ give the demoniac’s address to Christ: ‘‘ What have I to do with Thee, Jesus, 
Thou Son of the Most High God?” (S. Mark, v. 7; S. Luke, viii. 26; cf S. Matt. viii. 
29). ‘Inno other part of the Gospels do we find the Most High as an epithet to Gad: 
they are used separately as equivalent terms. Why, then, are they united by S. 
Mark and 8. Luke? The man and his friends were Pagans; and he was constraived 
by an overruling power to confess the true God in this explicit manner: just as tke 
Pythonissa did afterwards at Philippi, by saying, ‘These men are the servants of the 
Most High God.’—Acts, xvi. 17. And they [who wrote not as S. Matthew for Jews, 
retain the very form of words used by the demoniac, for the sake of those who hac 
believed in ‘gods many and lords many;’ and to whom the bare name of God diu 
not so surely present the proper and sublime notion of the word.” * * * “The 
most high God occurs but once more in the New Testament, Heb. vii. 1, and is there 
taken from Gen. xiv. 18, where Melchizedek is called ‘The priest of the most high 
God,’ to show that the God whom he served was the true God, and not one of the 
gods of the nations. * * * And TI believe, throughout the Old Testament, The 
Most High is conjoined with the name of God only in the like cases."—Townson, vn 
the Four Gospels, Disc. v. p. 156. For additional examples cf Tollner “Die. g “tei. 
Eingebung,” 5. 17 ff. and M. Gaussen, ‘“‘ Theopneustia,” p. 411, &e. As I have az- 
duced some passages from S. Matthew in support of this line of argument, it is ob- 
viously necessary (as indeed for other reasons connected with the subject of these 
Discourses) to advert to the question as to the original language of his Gospel. That 
it was originally composed in Hebrew cannot, I apprehend, be denied. On this sub 
ject some remarks will be found in Appendix M. 

* “Die Untersuchung iiber die Theopneustie der heiligen Schrift geb6rt also nicht 
in die Einleitung, wohin sie z. B. Bauer, Jahn, u. a. ziehen.”—Hiavernizk, Hinleit., Th 
is. 3. Cf supra, Lecture.i. p. 32. 


LECT. VIII. ] OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 343 


mijiar. It will manifestly save us the pains of any collatera! 
controversy if such instances only are brought forward, the dif- 
ficulties connected with which are generally allowed to have :2- 
ceived a satisfactory solution. 

I. The objections which first demand our notice are those 
founded upon the assertion that the sacred writers contradict 
each other. It is the more necessary to insist upon this toyic, 
since, as it has been well observed, “much of the criticism at 
the present day seems to assume that there is some resting- 
place between the perfect truthfulness of Inspiration, and the 


uncertainty of ordinary writing.” . Of this class of objections the 


want of harmony alleged to exist among the Evangelists affords 
the most ordinary (as they are the most important) examples. 
That in the Gospel narrative certain statements sre to be 
found which, at first sight, seem at variance, every one is aware. 
It is also well known that many commentators have not been 
happy in their efforts to reconcile the seeming discrepancies : 
and hence’ it has resulted that some advocates of Christianity 
have been tempted to make admissions which are gratuitous as 
they are unwarranted. It is too often conceded to the adversary, 


* Westcott, ‘‘ Elements of the Gospel Harmony,” p. 131. ‘A subjective stand- 
ard is erected, which, if once admitted, will be used as much to measure the doctrines 
as the facts of Scripture; and while many speculators boldly avow this, others are 
contented to admit the premises from which the conlusion necessarily follows.”— 
Ibid. The most obvious illustration of the truth of this remark is Schleiermacher’s 
theory of the “ Christian Consciousness.” ‘‘As the intuitive consciousness of God 
indicates to the human mind the existence * * * of a Personal Deity, so does 
this ‘Christian Consciousness’ testify that Christ lived, and that He continues, by His 
Spirit, to operate upon mankind. * * * ΤΌ is only he who has a ‘Christian Con- 
sciousness’ that can recognize Christ in the fragments of tradition, and the mani- 
festations of history.”—Neander, The Life of Jesus Christ, Introd. § 2 (Bohn’s transl. 

3) 
mat Mr. Coleridge writes: ‘‘On what other ground [than on the reception “of the 
plenary inspiration of the Old and New Testaments”] can [ account for the whimsical 
subintelligiturs of our numerous harmonists,—for the curiously inferred facts, the in- 
ventive circumstantial detail, the complemental and supplemental history which, in 
the utter silence of all historians and absence of all historical documents, they bring 
to light by mere force of logic ?—And all to do away with some half score apparent 
discrepancies in the chronicles and memoirs of the Old and New Testaments * * * 
discrepancies so *rifling in circumstance and import, that, although in some instances 
it is highty probable, and in all instances, perhaps, possible that they are only ap- 
parent and reconcilable, no wise man would care a straw whether they were real or 
apparent, reconciled or left in harmless and friendly variance.”— Confess. of an Enquir- 
ing Spirit, Letter iv. p. 41. Mankind, unhappily, are not content to regard this sub- 
ject from the heights of such sublime philosophy. A melancholy page in the history 
of the Church informs us that, from the earliest period to the Jays of Strauss, the 
enemies of Christianity (in the words of S. Augustine prefixed to this Discourse) ‘‘hoe 
solent quasi palmare suz vanitatis obiicere. auod ipsi Evangelists inter seipsos dis- 
sentiant.” ἢ 


344 RECAPITULATION. [LECT. Viti, 


that the discrepancies alleged are, in point of fact, real. Truth 
and candor, we are sometimes told, require that this concession 
should be made : and since a leading argument against any strict 
view of Inspiration is based upon this assumed want of harmony, 
these advocates attempt to evade it either by maintaining that 
such contradictions (which, as they are willing to allow, really ex-: 
ist) are of a trifling character ; or by alleging that the independ- 
ence of the sacred writers, as well as the absence of concert 
among them, is the only thing which the existence of discrepan- 
cies proves. Nay, we are sometimes told, that nothing but the 
force of prejudice, or attachment to some preconceived and er- 
roneous theory, can possibly induce any defender of Christianity 
to uphold the infallibility of the Evangelists in all the details of 
their Gospels." I would further premise, that this objection, 
which we are about to examine more closely, is of no modern 
date. So early as the middle of the second century the Epicnr- 
ean philosopher Celsus urged the existence of such apparent con- 
tradictions against the truth of the Gospel history :—he argued, 
for example, that 8. Matthew and 8. Mark made mention of hut 
one angel at the Sepulchre, while S. Luke and 8. John speak ot 
two.’ On which I would observe in passing, that we learn from 


1 Mr. Alford, in the Prolegomena to his edition of the Greek Testament (vol. i. 
ch. 1, § 4), observes to this effect ; “Christian commentators have been driven to a 
system of harmonizing which condescends to adopt the weakest compromises, a.:* +0 
do the utmost violence to probability and fairness, in its zeal for the veracity of the 
Evangelists. It becomes important, therefore, critically to discriminate betwee ap- 
parent and real discrepancy ; and while with all fairness we acknowledge whe *tter 
where it exists, to lay down certain common-sense rules whereby the former cay he 
also ascertained. The real discrepancies between our Evangelistic histories are very 
few, and those all of one kind. * * * They consist in different chronuio, zal ar- 
Tangements, expressed or implied. * * * The fair Christian critic will pursue a 
plan different from both [‘the enemies of the faith,’ and ‘the orthodox Harmonists’]. 
With no desire to create discrepancies, but rather every desire truthfully and justly 
to solve them, if it may be,—he will candidly recognise them where they unquestion- 
ably exist. By this he loses nothing, and the Evangelists lose nothing, * * * 
Christianity never was, and never can be, the gainer by any concealment, warping, or 
avoidance of the plain truth, wherever tt is to be found.” The emphasis which Mr. Al- 
ford gives, by his italics, to the truism contained in the closing words of this extract 
would seem to point to a notorious class of writers, whose principle has been a “ con- 
cealment, warping, or avoidance of the plain truth.” In the absence, however, of any 
direct mention of such writers, the remark appears, to say the least of it, superfluous. 
To the same effect Neander writes: ‘It must be regarded as one of the greatest 
boons which the purifying process of Protestant theology in Germany has conferred 
upon Faith, as well as Science, that the old. ‘mechanical’ view of Inspiration has 
been so generally abandoned. That doctrine, and the forced harmonies to which it 
led, demanded a clerk-like accuracy in the Evangelical accounts, and could not admit 
even the slightest contradictions in them; but we are now no more compelled to have 
reconrse to subtleties against which our sense of truth rebels.”—Zoe. cit. Ὁ. 8. 

2 Celsua, writes Origen, obiected: ὅτι καὶ πρὺς τὸν αὐτοῦ τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ τάφον ἱστόρηνται 


BCT, VIII. ] OBJE. .ICNS CONSIDERED, 345 


the numerous accounts of similar objections that the primitive 
Church did not receive the books of the New Testament as Di- 
vine, without a full appreciation of the difficulties which, from 
the very first, have been so pertinaciously urged against them," 
Tndeed we have an express intimation to this effect in the cele- 
vated Fragment brought to light by Muratori; which is the 
wliest document extant, with one exception, in which the 
‘vangélists are named, and which is the first catalogue of the 
Books of the New Testament.’ The author of this Fragment, 
having enumerated the four Evangelists, pauses to observe: 
« Although sundry articles of belief are announced in the several 


ἐληλυθέναι ὑπό τινων μὲν ἄγγελοι δύο, ὑπό τινων δὲ εἷς" ὡς οἶμαι, τηρῆσας Ματθαΐων 
μὲν [xxviii 5] καὶ Μάρκον [xvi. 5] ἕνα ἱστορηκέναι, Λουκῶν δὲ [xxiv. 4] καὶ ᾿Ιωάννην 
[xx. 12] δύο: ἅπερ οὐκ Hv ἐναντία" οἱ μὲν γάρ, K. τ. A—Cont. Celsum, lik. 
γ. § 56, t. i. p. 621. 

1 Take, e. g., the difficulty which Gibbon has specially singled out to form the 
climax of his well-known “ fifteenth” chapter: “Under the reign of Tiberius, the 
whole earth, or at least a celebrated province of the Roman empire, was involved in 
a preternatural darkness of three hours [S. Matt. xxvii. 45]. Even this miraculous 
event, which ought to have excited the wonder, the curiosity, and the devotion of 
mankind, passed without notice in an age of science and history. It happened during 
the lifetime of Seneca and the elder Pliny, who must have experienced the immediate 
effects, or received the earliest intelligence, of the prodigy,” &c., &e.—The Decline, &c. 
of the Roman Empire, ch. xv. This sarcasm has not even the poor merit of original- 
ity. Origen informs us that, in his day, two objections were urged against this por- 
tion of the Gospel narrative. (1.) ‘‘Quomodo hoe factum tam mirabile, nemo Gree- 
corum, nemo Barbarorum factum conscripsit in tempore illo, maxime qui Chronica 
conscripserunt, et notaverunt sicubi tale aliquid novum factum est aliquando; sed 
soli hoe scripserunt vestri auctores?”—Comm. Series in Matt., § 134, t. iii. p. 923, 
(2.) 1t was also objected, that the only natural cause by which such a phenomenon 
could be explained, viz., an eclipse of the sun, is here excluded; because, “in tem- 
pore quo passus est Christus, manifestum est quoniam conventus non erat Lune ad 
Solem quoniam tempus erat Paschale.” To the former objection Origen replies as 
follows: ‘Arbitror ergo, sicut cetera signa que facta sunt in Passionem Ipsius, in 
Jerusalem tantummodo fucta sunt. * * * Nec alia terra tremuit tune, nisi terra 
Jerusalem * * ¥* ut sentirent (verbi gratia) et qui in .4%thtopia erant, et ir 
India, et in Scythia: quod s factum fuisset, sine dubio invetretur in historiis aliqui- 
bus eorum qui in Chronicis scripserunt nova aliqua facta.”— “bid. And Origen goes 
on to adduce in illustration how “there was a thick darkness in all the land of Egypt 
three days * * * Dut all the children of Israel had ligat in their dwellings.”— 
Exod. x. 22, 23 ;—considering the statement of the Evangelist that there was “‘ dark- 
ness over all the land,” as parallel to the hyperbole of Obadiah, that there was “ no 
nation or kingdom” in which Ahab had not sought for Elijah—l Kings, xviii, 10. 
The second objection Origen answers by alleging that another natural cause might be 
assigned, viz.: ‘Quasdam tenebrosissimas nubes, et forte non unam, sed multas et 
wajores concurrisse super terram Judzeam et Jerusalem, ad cooperiendos radios solis, 
et ideo profunde factze sunt tenebr a sexta hora usque ad nonam.” For the usua? 
cavil as to the Ark of Noah, ef. ‘‘ In Genes.” Hom, ii, t. ti. p. 61. 

2 Cf. supra, Lecture ii. p. 5", note *. Dr. Routh observes: ‘Quum vero ponendus 
sit auctor ejus [Fragmenti| inter scriptores, qui primi omnium, excepto Papia, de 
Evangelistis ipsis vel comu.emoraverint, vel ipsorum scripta adjectis nominibus pro- 
tulerint, fieri non potest ¢ -in rrimus hic librorum Novi Testament: Catalogus curiz 
nostris dignus censeatur.”— Reug. Sacr t. i. p. 400. 


346 RECAPITULATION. [LECT. VI. 


Gospels, there is no difference in the Faith of believers ; since all 
things relating to the Lord’s history have been declared by One 
overruling Spinit.”” 

There are four points of view from which this subject of the 
Gospel Harmony has been regarded :—(1.) It was argued by a 
writer who attracted some notice during the last century, that 
“the Resurrection of-Christ is not true, because the narratives 
of the Evangelists do not harmonize.” (2.) He was met by the 
reply, ‘* This great doctrine is true because the accounts do coin- 
cide.” (3;) A third opinion was interposed : “ It may, after all, 
be true, although discrepancies actually exist in the statements 
of the Gospels.” (4.) But there remains yet a fourth mode of 
regarding the question: ‘‘It is, and must be true, even though 
1 should not succeed in bringing the representations of the 
Evangelists into harmony ; or in solving all the difficulties which 
an ingenious mind may suggest.”’ ‘This last proposition is ob- 
viously the only just or philosophical conclusion for those to ar- 
rive at, who ascribe, in any true sense of the word, Divine 
authority to the Bible. I repeat that if we fully and entirely 
believe in the Divine origin of Holy Scripture, to assert that its 
statements do not harmonize is a contradiction in terms. Who 
but the veriest sciolist would question the universality of one of 
Nature’s Laws, because the powers of Science have not as yet 
brought into subjection certain phenomena, to which this Law, 
if true, must extend. There are difficulties, no doubt, in ex- 
plaining all tne phenomena which the Gospels present. Such 
difficulties, however, arise, not from any real discordance among 
the Evangelists, but from our not being, as yet at least, in pos- 
session of the clue which would reconcile their statements: just 
as certain difficulties occur in the application of the theory of 
Gravitation ;—not from any want of universality in the Law, but 
from our ignorance of the conditions of the problem.* 


? “Ket ideo licet varia singulis Evangeliorum libris principia doceantur, nihil ta- 
men diifert credentium fides, czm uno ac principali Spiritu declarata sint in omnibus 
de Nativitate, de Passione, de Resurrectione, de Conversatione Domini cum Discipu- 
lis Suis.’—ap. Routh., loc. cit. p. 394: where Dr. Routh considers “ voce principia, 
capita seu articulos hic significari, quippe cum in ore omnibus sit, doceri principia sive 
capita fidei.”—Jbid. p. 411. 

2 See Thiersch, ‘‘ Versuch zur Herstell,”s. 30. The three former opinions Lessing 
mentions as being held by the author of the “ Wolfenbiittel Fragments” (Reimarus), 
ty “the Orthodox,” who opposed vhat writer, and by larasele respectively ; the fourth 
is that which Thiersch maintains. 

5 O£ the remarks of Mr Westectt, “ Elements of the Gaal Harmony,” p. 136. 


LECT, VIII. ] OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 347 


Let us examine how, in such a case, all sound philosophy 
proceeds ; and let us take for our illustration the late solution of 
a celebrated astronomical problem. ‘No sooner,” observes one 
of the distinguished men who have afforded Science this triumph, 
—‘‘No sooner had astronomers commenced, some years ago, to 
suspect that the motion of Uranus was modified by some un- 
known cause, than all possible hypotheses were at once hazarded 
as to its nature.”* The writer then proceeds to discuss the 
merits of these several hypotheses, with the significant exception 
of that which would explain the phenomenon by asserting that 
the Law of Gravitation is not universal :—‘‘I will not stop,” 
continues M, Le Verrier, “‘ to consider this idea, that the laws of 
Gravitation may cease to be rigorous at the great distance of 
Uranus from the Sun. It is not the first time that, in order tc 
explain inequalities for which they were unable to account, cer- 
tain persons have betaken themselves to the principle of univer- 
sal Gravitation. But we also know that these hypotheses have 
always disappeared before a more profound examination of facts,’ 
Let us then apply to the question of the Gospel Harmony thé 
principle which, as we learn from the instance just cited, is rec- 
ognised as legitimate in the exact sciences. In doing so, let us, 
for a moment, lay aside the notion that the Evangelical narra- 
tives are inspired ; and consider them merely as ordinary his- 
tories, of which we have no reason to question the general trust- 
worthiness. 

The contradictions alleged to exist in the Gospels either are 
apparent only, or they are assumed to be absolute.” In the for- 
mer case, there is clearly no difficulty at all; and we need only 
point out that the discrepancy is but apparent. In the latter, 


' Tn an essay read by M. Le Verrier before the “ Academie des Sciences,” June 
1st, 1846, an historical account is given of previous investigations relating to the per- 
turbations observed in the motion of the planet Uranus. ‘‘A peine avait-on com- 
meneé, il y a quelques années, ἃ soupconner que le mouvement d’Uranus était modifié 
par quelque cause inconnue, que déja toutes les hypothéses possibles étaient hasardées 
sur la nature de cette cause. Chacun, il est vrai, suivit simplement le penchant de 
son imagination, sans apporter aucune considération a l’appui de son assertion. Or 
songea a la résistance de !’éther; on parla d’un gros satellite qui accompagnerait Ura- 
nus; ou bieu d’un planéte encore inconnue, dont la foree perturbatrice devrait étre 
prise en considération; on alla méme jusqu’ a supposer qu’ a cette énorme distance 
du Soleil, la loi de la gravitation pourrait perdre quelque chose de sa rigueur. Enfin, 
une cométe n’aurait-elle pas pu troubler brusquement Uranus dans sa marche ?” 

? For some acute remarks on this aspect of the question, see Mr. Rogers’ Hssay, 
“Reason and Faith,” p. 69, &e. 


348 RECAPITULATION, [LECy. VIL 


where it 15 objected that an absolute contradiction exists, it is 
equally plain that any hypothetical, or even possible solution, 
must, in all fairness, be accepted as a sufficient answer, if we 
only allow the general truthfuiness of the narratives which we 
compare :—indeed to deny this principle is to assume that there 
is no single circumstance omitted by the Evangelists which, if 
known, would harmonize their statements.’?, Even were we unable 
to adduce any example in which the application of such a prin- 
ciple has been successful, every impartia! mind must admit its 
sufficiency as a reply. Many examples, however, illustrative of 
this position, may be pointed out; and others are being daily 


? Ko6ppen observes that, in narratives drawn up by men who wrote like the Evan- 
gelists, independently of each other, ia different places and at different times, the na- 
ture of the case requires that there should be considerable diversity of manner in the 
account which they have given of events. And yet all four perfectly agree as to 
what constitutes the essence of their statements. In no single passage of the Gospel 
is there a contradiction in matters of fact; but there is variety in the form of represen- 
tation, and must be so, if everything was honestly set down. The opponents of the 
Gospels interchange these two features of the case; which are in the nature of things, 
unquestionably different. They seek out passages in which variety in the form of rep- 
resentation is to be found, and these they term mutual contradictions.—“ Die Bibel ein 
Werk der gottl, Weisheit,” B. ii. s. 117. ° 

? With reference to the narratives by S. Matthew and S. Luke of the death of 
Judas, Mr. Alford (on Acts, i. 18, 19) observes: ‘The ἐκτήσατο χωρίον does not ap- 
pear to agree with the account in Matt. xxvii. 6-8; nor, consistently with common 
honesty can they be reconciled, wnless we knew more of the facts than we do. * * Ἔ 
Whether Judas, as Bengel supposes, ‘initio emtionis facto, occasionem dederit ut 
Sacerdotes eam consummarent,’ we cannot say: such a thing is of course possible. 
* %* = With regard to the purchase of the field, the more circumstantial account in 
Matthew is to be adopted; with regard to the death of Judas, the more circumstantial 
account of Luke. The clue which joins these has been lost to us ; and in this, only those 
will find any stumbling-block, whose faith in the veracity of the Evangelists is very 
weak indeed.” Ebrard gives a striking example of an apparent contradiction, arising 
from the manner in which the same fact has impressed itself on different eye-witnesses. 
On the evening of September 5, 1839, a rumor prevailed in Zurich that an attack was 
to be apprehended from an armed force of Bernese. The greatest commotion was ex- 
cited, and a body of men was drawn together in the district of Pfaffikon, to repel the 
attack. The rumor was soon found to be without any foundation, and means were 
taken by the Government to allay the popular tumult. On subsequently inquiring as 
to these events, Ebrard was informed, by one person, that tne Governmeut despatched 
N., one of their number, at a late hour, with a letter, to Pfaffikon: on another occa- 
sion, Ebrard was told, by a second informant, that N., after going a short distance, 
returned with the intelligence that the tocsin was already ringing in Pfaffikon. A 
third related that two persons on horseback had been despatched; while a fourth 
averred that NV. had sent two messengers on horseback to the disturbed district. ‘If 
ever four accounts appear irreconcilable, these are so. And if a harmonist were to 
conjecture that N. had been sent to Pfaffikon; that he had been met on the Ziirich- 
berg by two peasants, coming from that place with the intelligence that the people 
were already on the march; that he had returned with them to Zurich, and, entering 
the neighboring house of a magistrate, had caused two horses to be at once saddled, 
and commanded the peasants to ride back in haste, to proclaim peace :—all this would, 
no doubt, be set down as a highly improbable and artificial conjecture. And yet it 15 
uo cenjecture, but the simple, true account which M himself gave me, when I asked 
him aboat that event.”—Kritik der evang. Geschichte, 8. 72. 


LECT... Vill. | OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED, 349 


brought to light by the diligence of the learned.’ It is by no 
means uncommon to find in the accounts of two perfectly honest 
historians, referring to the same event from different points of 
view, certain peculiarities in the structure of their compositions 
which, when noticed, at once reconcile the seeming variance 
which such peculiarities may have occasioned : or some fact may 
have been omitted which lends an air of opposition to their state- 
ments,——an opposition which the mention of the omitted fact by 


Φ 

1 The account given in Dan. v. 30, of the death of ‘Belshazzar the king of the 
Chaldeans” (a name which does not occur except in the Bible), on the night of the 
conquest of Babylon by Cyrus, seems to present an irreconcilable opposition to that 
of the Chaldean historians. 

Josephus (‘‘Cont. Apion.,” lib. i. ο. 20, t. ii, p. 452) has preserved a fragment of 
Berosus, in which it is stated that Cyrus invaded Babylonia in the seventeenth year 
of the reign of Nabonnedus; that as soon as Nabonnedus was aware of his ap- 
»roach, he assembled his forces to oppose him, but was defeated, and fled with a 
few adherents to the city of Borsippus (εἰς τὴν Βορσιππηνῶν πόλιν): and, in fine, that 
Cyrus took that place, treated Nabonnedus with kindness, and provided him with a 
settlement in Carmania, where he died. The name here given by Berosus to the last 
Chaldean king is repeated, with immaterial variations, in the Canon of Ptolemy, by 
Alexander Polyhist. and Abydenus (Euseb. ‘‘Chron. Armen.,” i. pp. 45, 60), and by 
Megasthenes (Euseb., “ Preepar. Evang.,” ix. 41, ed. Gaisford, t. ii. p. 442). Herodotus 
alone calls him Labynetus (‘‘Clio,” 188), adding (191), that the city was stormed by 
night during a festival; which fact ig also vouched for by Xenophon, who states fur- 
ther (‘‘Cyrop.,” vii. 5. 30), that the King (whom he merely describes as ἀνόσιος βασιλεὺς) 
then perished. On these facts Winer (“ Real-Worterb.,” art. Belsazzar) observes: 
‘‘ Berosus is, at all events, more trustworthy than a foreign writer who lived long after 
the transaction. * * * Concerning the fate, too, of the Babylonian King, Berosus 
is perhaps in the right; and deserves more credit than Xenophon and Daniel.” 
Hengstenberg, however (although he had just adduced the authority of Berogus to 
confirm the statement of Dan. iv. 30, in opposition to Ctesias and the Greek historians), 
“finds no difficulty in rejecting the account” of Berosus in the case before us. and in 
accepting the narrative of Xenophon. (“Beitrage, i s. 316, wu. 326.) But another 
voice is to be heard on this question. 

Colonel Rawlinson (dating from Bagdad, January 25, 1854) has communicated to 
the “ Athenzeum” (No. 1377, p. 341, March 18, 1854), a discovery which he has “‘re- 
cently made in Babylonian history, and which is of the utmost importance for Scrip- 
tural illustration.” A number of clay cylinders have been lately disinterred in the 
ruins of Um-Qeer (the ancient Ur of the Chaldees), two of which contain a memorial 
of the works executed by Nabonidus (the last king of Babylon) in southern Chaldea. 
“The most important fact which they disclose is, that the eldest son of Nabonidus 
was named Bel-shar-ezar, and that he was admitted by his father to a share in the 
government. This name is undoubtedly the Belshazzar (ΣΝ Ὁ53) of Daniel, and thus 
furnishes us with a key to the explanation of that great historical problem which has 
hitherto defied solution. We can now understand how Belshazzar, as joint king with 
his father, may have been governor of Babylon, when the city was attacked by the 
zombined forces of the Medes and Persians, and may have perished in the assault 
which followed; while Nabonidus, leading a force to the relief of the place, was de- 
feated, and obliged to take refuge in the neighboring town of Borsippa (or Birs-i- 
Nimrud), capitalating, after a short resistance, and being subsequently assigned, ac- 
cording to Bernsus, an honorable retirement in Carmania. By the discovery, indeed, 
of the name of Bel-shar-ezar, as appertaining to the son of Nabonidus, we are, for the 
first time, enabled to reconcile authentic history with the inspired record of 
Daniel.” 


350 RECAPITULATION. [LECT. VIL 


a third writer instantly clears up." The following solution of a 
difficulty in ordinary history, together with the application of 
the principle on which it rests to a parallel case in the Evangel- 
ical record, will amply confirm what has been just stated. 
Aristobulus, the friend of Alexander the Great, and who 
watched by his death-bed, relates that he died on the 30th of 
the Macedonian month Desius. On the other hand, Humenes 
and Diodotus, who kept the journal of Alexander, and who re- 
count the progress of his malady, place his death on the evening 
of the 28th of the same month. Here is an obvious variance in 
statement; and yet no critic has for a moment considered that 
there is any real contradiction ;—although the solutions which 
have been given are very different. Thus it is shown by some, 
how the variance will disappear if we call to mind the manner of 
counting the days of the month by the Greeks ; while the expla- 
nation of another writer is founded upon the difference in the 
point of time from which the beginning of the day was reckoned : 
—whether from sunrise, as at Babylon, or from sunset, according 
to Grecian usage.’ Other explanations are also supplied, and any 


1 To take an instance from the Old Testament: Sennacherib had invaded Judea, 
and Hezekiah endeavored to buy off the approaching attack upon Jerusalem: 
“That which thou puttest on me,” said he, “will I bear.” The sum demanded ex- 
hausted the Jewish resources to such an extent, that Hezekiah was reduced to the 
necessity of cutting off the gold from the doors of the Temple (2 Kings, xviii, 13-16). 
This cowardly sacrifice was in vain; for we know how the Assyrians broke faith 
with the Jews, and we are also told of God’s miraculous interposition in their favor 
(Isai. xxxvi., xxxvii). Shortly after this event, however, the ambassadors sent to 
congratulate Hezekiah found his treasury full to overflowing (Isai. xxxix). The ap- 
parent contradiction is at once cleared up by a few lines incidentally introduced in 
the Second Book of Chronicles: ‘Thus the Lord saved Hezekiah * * * and 
many brought presents to Hezekiah, so that he was magnified in the sight of all na- 
tions from thenceforth,’—2 Chron. xxxii. 22, 23; see Blunt’s ‘‘Undesigned Coinci- 
dences,” p. 236, &c. 

1 St. Croix observes, in his ‘‘Hxamen Critique des Historiens d’Alexandre,” “ Les 
Ephémérides dont l’autorité est ici d’un grand poids, et qu’on ne peut soupconner ni 
Plutarque, ni Arrien, d’avoir falsifiées marquent ce jour au vingt-huit du mois Ma- 
cédonien Deesius, et Aristobule fixoit cet événement au trente du méme mois. Cette 
différence n’est peut-étre qu’apparente; car, comme il y avoit dans l’année Greeque 
six mois de 29 jours, et que le dernier de ces mois portoit le nom de 30, quoiqu’il ne 
fit réellement que de 29, il est possible que la différence des deux dates ne fait que 
du vingt-huit finissant au vingt-neuf commenc¢ant, et comme chez les Grecs le jour 
commengoit le soir, ainsi que chez presque tous les peuples qui avoient des mois lu- 
naires, ces dates pouvoient ne différer en tout que de quelques heures au plus. Lon- 
guerue (‘De Epoch. et Ann. vet. Orient.,” c. 1) et M. Larcher (‘ Trad. d’Hérodote,” 
t. vii. p. 709) proposent d’autres moyens de conciliation sur lesquels je ne prononce- 
rai pas, mais qui ne tendent pas moins ἃ résoudre la difficulté” (p. 633). Larcher’s 
explanation is as follows: ‘“‘Mort d’Alexandre le 29 du mois Macédonien Deesius, “αἱ 
répond au 30 Thargélion des Athéniens et au 2 Juin.—(Plutarch. in Alexand, p. 706; 
Arrian., lib. vu. cap. xxviii, p. 309). 1] se presente ici une difficulté que je crvis de- 
voir éclaircir. Aristobule, ami d’Alexandre, et qui ne l’avoit pas quitté pendant sa 


LECT. VIII] OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 351 


one among them is considered to remove every appearance of 
contradiction. The history of the Gospel Harmony supplies an 
example exactly parallel. The case is one of peculiar interest ; 
and from a very early period it has presented a difficulty to 
Christian Apologists. I allude to the statements of S. Mark and 
S. John, as to the hour of Christ’s Passion :—‘“‘ A question,” 
says 8S. Augustine, “ which, above all others, is wont to stir up 
the shamelessness of the contentious, and to disturb the unskil- 
fulness of the weak.” §. Augustine himself proposed two 
methods whereby the accounts might be reconciled ; and, while 
admitting the difficulties with which his suggestions were en- 
cumbered, he lays down the principle for which I now contend. 
Referring to a supposed objection to one of his solutions, he asks : 
“Tf we both alike believe the Evangelists, do you point out how 
their accounts can be otherwise reconciled, and I will acquiesce 
most cheerfully ; for I love not my own opinion, but the truth of 
the Gospel. Until some other explanation is discovered, this of 
mine shall suffice ; and when that other is demonstrated, I too 
will adopt it.” It has been reserved for modern times to sug- 
gest a solution which has been almost universally accepted, and 
which removes every shade of difficulty from the case. §S, Mark 
asserts that our Lord was crucified at ‘the third hour,” or at 


maladie, dit qu’il mourut 16 30 Desius Τριακάδι, tandis que le journal de la maladie 
de ce prince porte qu'il mourut le 28 sur le soir—Ty¥7 δὲ τρίτῃ φθίνοντος πρὸς δείλην 
ἀπέθανεν. Cette contradiction n’est qu’apparente. 1°. Le mois Desius avoit 31 
jours; par conséquent le troisiéme du mois finissant répondoit au 29 Thargélion. 
2°. Celui qui tenoit le journal de la maladie étant ἃ Babylone, suivoit usage des 
Babyloniens, qui comptoient le jour depuis le lever du soleil jusqu’au lever du jour 
suivant. Alexandre étant mort sur les huit ἃ neuf heures du soir, c’étoit encore pour 
eux le 29 Thargélion. Mais Aristobule, qui ecrivoit pour les Grecs, suit l’usage de 
ces peuples, qui commengoit le jour au coucher du soleil et le finissoient le lendemain 
au coucher. Alexandre, étant mort apres le coucher du soleil, étoit mort réellement le 
30, selon leur maniére de calcuier les temps, c’est-a-dire, le 2 juin.” This example is 
referred to by Tholuck, in his “ Glaubwiird. der evang. Geschichte,” 5, 447. 

1 Queestio de hora Dominicze Passionis, quee maxime solet et contentiosorum con- 
citare impudentiam, et infirmorum imperitiam perturbare.”—De Consens. Evangelist. 
lib. iii. § 13, t. iii. pars ii p. 127. 

? “Unde, inquis, probas horam tertiam fuisse? Respondeo, Quia credo Evange- 
Ustis: quibus et tu si credis, ostende quemadmodum et hora sexta et hora tertia 
potuerit Dominus crucifigi? De sexta enim, ut fateamur, narratione Johannis urge- 
mur; tertiam Marcus commemorat: quibus si uterque nostrum credit, ostende tu 
aliter quemadmodum fieri utrumque potuerit, libentissime adquiescam. Non enim 
sententiam meam, sed Evangelii diligo veritatem. Atque utinam etiam plures ab aliis 
inveniantur hujus exitus queestionis: quod donec fiat, utere mecum isto si placet. Si 
enim nullus alius exitus potuerit inveniri, solus iste sufficiet: si autem potuerit, cum 
demonstratus fuerit, eligemus. Tantum non putes consequens esse, ut quilibet oms 
nium quatuor Evangelistarum mentitus sit, aut in tanto et tam sancto culmine auc- 
toritatis erraverit.”—Jbid. p. 123. 


352 RECAPITULATION, {LECT. VIII, 


nine o’clock in the forenoon ; while according to 5, John, Pilate 
‘about the sixth hour” was still sitting in judgment. The ex- 
planation of this apparent discordance in time—an explanation 
which even Strauss, while exaggerating “the difficulty” to the 
utmost, allows to be ‘‘ possible”’——~is, that 8. John has given the 
hour according to the Roman calculation of time, which counted 
as we do, from midnight ; while 8. Mark adheres to the Jewish 
custom of counting from sunrise.” 

The principle, therefore, pointed out by 8, Augustine is, I 
submit, the only one admissible by those who do not deny the 
Divine origin of the Bible altogether. Any solution, which af- 
fords a possible mode of harmonizing those statements of the 
sacred writers which present a semblance of opposition, is to be 
admitted before we can allow the existence of a contradiction : 
and it is a circumstance deserving of all attention, that for every 
example of such variance in the narratives of the Evangelists, no 
matter how carefully sought out, some solution offers itself as 


* “ According to Mark, it was the third hour (ὥρα τρίτη) (nine in the morning) when 
Jesus was crucified (xv. 25). On the other hand, John says (xix. 14) that it was 
about the sixth hour [ὥρα ἣν ὡς (or ὡσεὶ) ἕκτη], (when, according to Mark, Jesus had 
already hung three hours on the cross), that Pilate first sat in judgment over him. 
Unless we are to suppose that the sun-dial went backward, as in the time of Heze- 
kiah, this is a contradiction which is not to be removed by a violent alteration of the 
reading, nor by appealing to the ὡσεΐ (about) in John, or to the inability of the disci- 
ples to take note of the hours under such afflictive circumstances: at the utmost ἐξ 
might, perhaps, be cancelled, if it were possible to prove that the fourth Gospel through- 
out proceeds upon another mode of reckoning time than that used by the Synoptists.” 
—The Life of Jesus, part iii, ch. 3, § 132 (Chapman’s transl. vol. iii. p. 276). 

* For a full discussion of this question see the eighth of Townson’s “‘ Discourses 
on the Four Gospels;” where it is shown that S. John has, on all occasions, “reck- 
cned the hours as we do, from midnight to noon, and again from noon to midnight:” 
and also that the interval of time between the “sixth hour” of S. John, and the “third 
hour” of 8. Mark (i. 6. between six and nine o'clock in the forenoon), must have been 
“ully occupied by the vacillation of Pilate, in consequence of his wife’s message (S. 
Matt. xxvii. 19),—by the trial and condemnation of the two malefactors,—and by the 
procession to Calvary. Adopting this view, Rettig, in the “Studien und Kritiken” 
for 1830 (s. 103), quotes the words of Pliny: “Ipsum diem alii aliter observavere. 
* * %* Sacerdotes, et qui diem definiere civilem, item egyptii et Hipparchus a 
media nocte in mediam.”—AHist. Nat., lib. ii. 77; and Le Clere (by whom this solution 
was first suggested), quotes the question of Plutarch—dvu re τὴν τῆς ἡμέρας ἀρχὴν ἐκ 
μέσης νυκτὸς λαμβάνουσι :---- Οιιωδί. Rom., \xxxiii. Tholuck (“Glaubwiird. der ev. 
Gesch.” s. 306) shows that the time of sunrise at the vernal equinox, taken in con- 
nexion with the rules of Roman jurisprudence, fully confirms the explanation thus 
given of S. John’s expression, “about the sixth hour.” He also quotes Macrobius, 
“ Magistratus post mediam noctem auspicantur; et post exortum solem agunt”—Sat- 
urna. i. 3; and Aulus Gellius, ‘‘Senatus-cousulta ante exortum solem, aut post solis 
occasum facta, rata non esse.’’—WNoct. Att. xiv. 7. 

It is strange that the latest English commentator, Mr. Alford, should have taken 
no notice of this celebrated solution. He writes: “There is an insuperable difficulty 
as the text now stands. * * * We must certainly suppose that there has been 
some very early erratum in our copies.” 


LECT, VIII | OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 353 


being possible—possible I say, since the nature of the case, at 
times, admits of no more than suggesting such an explanation as 
may not be improbable.’ In apparent discrepancies of this kind, 
the difficulty often arises from the simple fact, that we have al- 
together lost the clue which unites the different statements. 
Sometimes, it is true, that difficulty may arise from misconcep- 
tion of what has been written,—a misconception which patient 
study may, and frequently does, clear up :—as, for example, 


1 Cf. Steudel, ‘‘ Ueber Inspir. der Apost.,” H. ii.s. 72. For example: “As He 
was come nigh unto Jericho,” our Lord restored sight to ‘a certain blind man” who 
“sat by the wayside begging,’ and who ‘cried, saying, Jesus, thou Son of David, 
have mercy on me.”—S. Luke, xviii. 35-43. In S. Mark, x. 46-52, we read that “aa 
He went out of Jericho,’ He performed the same miracle on “blind Bartimasus, the 
son of Timzeus,” who also “sat by the highway side begging,” and who addressed 
the Lord in the very same words as the blind man in 8. Luke’s account. But where 
is the contradiction here? What is there improbable or overstrained in supposing 
that a blmd man may have sat “ by the wayside begging,” on both occasions ;—on the 
road leading to, as well as that leading from, Jericho? Assuming this, what can be 
thought more probable (as Origen has already suggested—‘‘ Comm. in S. Matt.,” t. 
lil. p. 732) than that the news of the former miracle should have reached “ blind Bar- 
timeeus ;” and that he too should have placed himself in the way of the great Prophet, 
and supplicated Him in language which had already arrested His attention, and won | 
His pity? Ebrard (loc. cit., s. 469), moreover, points out that the accounts of the 
Evangelists themselves intimate that the two transactions were different. Barti- 
meus, at the mere sound of Uhrist’s voice, comes himself without any one to lead 
him; while the other blind man must have been at some distance; for Jesus ‘‘ com- 
manded him to be brought unto Him,”—ver. 40 (cf. also ἐγγίσαντος δὲ αὐτοῦ). 

Again, what real difficulty arises here from the fact of S. Matthew (xx. 29-34), 
when relating Christ’s departure from Jericho, having combined facts so strikingly simi: 
lar in one summary: ‘‘ Behold two blind men sitting by the wayside, when they heard 
that Jesus passed by, cried out, saying, Have mercy on us, Ὁ Lord, thou Son of 
David?” There can clearly be no exception taken to the general assertion, that eventa, 
strikingly analogous, may have happened on different occasions :—for (not to mention 
the similarity between the miracles performed by Elijah and Elisha), Christ Himself 
refers to the two instances of His feeding the multitude (see S. Matt. xvi. 9,10; 8 
Mark, viii. 19, 20); and S. John, (ii. 14, 15) relates that He cast ‘“‘ the money-changers” 
out of the Temple at the opening of His ministry ; while the other Evangelists tell us 
that He repeated the same act towards its close (S. Matt. xxi. 12; S. Mark, xi. 15; 
S. Luke, xix. 45). Cf. also the repetition of the same command, S. Matt. v. 32, and 
xix. 9. We learn incidentally, from the manner in which S. Augustine employs this 
principle, the nature of the arguments with which, even in his time, this truth of the 
Gospel history was assailed. In one of the miracles of feeding the multitude, 8. Mark 
(vi. 40) tells us that “they sat down by hundreds and by fifties.” According to 8. Luke 
(ix. 14), our Lord said, ‘‘ Make them sit down by fifties.” Had S. Mark, observes 5. 
Augustine, omitted the “ fifties,” it would be called a contradiction, And, as to the 
repetition of the miracle itself, ‘‘Hoc sane non ab re fuerit admonere in hoc miraculo 
de septem panibus, quod duo Kvangelistee Matthzus Marcusque posuerunt; quia si 
aliquis eorum id dixisset, qui de illis guinque panibus non dixisset, contrarius czeteris 
putaretur. Quis enim non existimaret unum idemque factumesse * * * ged aut 
illum pro quinque panibus septem dum falleretur commemorasse, aut illos pro septem 
quinque, aut utrosque mentitos, vel oblivione deceptos? * * * Hoc ideo diximus 
ut sicubi simile invenitur factum a Domino, quod in aliquo alteri Evangelistz ita re- 
pugnare videatur ut omnino solvi non possit, nihil aliud intelligatur quam utrumque 
factum esse.”—De Consensu Evang., lib. ii. § 50, loc. cit. p. 11. Schleiermacher calmly 
observes: “I cannot prevail on myself to believe the second feeding.”—Hssay on 8, 
Luke, p. 144. 


23 


354 RECAPITULATION. [LECT. VIII 


where Neander (who does not, in general, scruple to impeach the 
accuracy of the Evangelists) observes, with reference to the return 
of the Holy Family to Nazareth after the flight to Egypt: “It 
was formerly thought that Matthew and Luke contradicted each 
other here. * * * Both accounts may be equally true, and 
harmonize well with each other, although those who put them 
imperfectly together may not perceive the agreement,” But 
there are instances over which it is conceivable, from the nature 
of the case, that some obscurity must for ever rest. Let any 
single event be described by different eye-witnesses, and their ac- 
counts will present variations, and apparent contradictions, simply 
because each of them seizes strongly upon some one salient point, 
which serves to elucidate his purpose, and leaves the rest com- 
paratively in the background. In entering upon the subject of 
the Gospel Harmony, we must ever remember that our four 
Evangelists regarded the facts of the Saviour’s history each un- 
der a different aspect. The essential point of difference between 
S. John and the others’ lies in his having in view the opponents 
of the Gospel within the Church: while the Synoptical writers 
mainly addressed themselves to the wants of those who stood 
without its pale, whether Jews or Gentiles. §. Matthew’s aim is 
to establish the identity of the New Testament Revelation with 
that of the Old ; and to prove to the people of Israel that in 
Jesus, as the Christ, were fulfilled the promises to Abraham and 
to David. SS. Mark desires to exhibit the sublime facts of Chris- 
tianity, in opposition to the degraded supestitions of heathenism. 
The narrative of 8S. Luke, commencing at Jerusalem with the 
Vision of the Priest in the Sanctuary, closes with 8. Paul’s ad- 
dress in his prison at Rome ;—the design of the inspired historian 
being to describe the several stages by which the message of Sal- 
vation advanced, from the Temple of Jehovah, to the metropolis 
of the Gentile world.’ In narratives composed with objects thus 


1 “The Life of Jesus Christ,” Book i. ch iii. § 21 (Bohn’s transl. p. 31). Nean- 
der had immediately before (§ 19) stated: “ We cannot vouch with equal positivenesa 
for the accuracy of Matthew’s statement of the means by which the Sages learned, 
after their arrival in Jerusalem, that the chosen Child was to be born in Bethlehem.” 

2 See Ebrard, loc. cit., s. 143. 

8 Cf Hofmann, “ Weissagung u. Erfullung,” s. 48; and Luger, “‘ Die Rede des 
Stephanus,” 5. 2, who refers te the commission given by Christ at the close of S. 
Luke’s Gospel: “That repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His 
name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem” —xxiv. 47; observing that the ad- 
dress of the Lord (Acts, i. 8), before His Ascension, supplies an index to the con 


LECT. VIII.] OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED, 300 


distinct, we can feel no surprise at the absence of sundry par- 
ticulars which, if known to us, would at once clear up many of 
those obscurities that afford so great a source of perplexity to 
several minds. Nor should the silence of the Evangelists as to 
such particulars in any wise disconcert us ; unless we impose 
other rules on them than those by which we are content to test 
the fidelity of ordinary writers. The omission of a contemporary 
author to notice a fact which we, from whatever reason, may con- 
sider of the greatest moment, is a case by no means unusual. 
The younger Pliny,—although giving a circumstantial detail of 
so many physical facts, and describing the great eruption of 
Vesuvius, the earthquake, and the showers of ashes that issued 
from the volcano,—makes no allusion whatever to the sudden 
overwhelming of two large and populous cities, Herculaneum and 
Pompeii.’ 

In illustration of the foregoing observations I would further 
add, that what we know of the motives which led to the compo- 
sition of our Gospels renders the existence of contradictions ante- 
cedently improbable in the very highest degree. Eusebius, in 
his chapter “On the order of the Gospels,” ratifies the concur- 
rent voice of earlier history which is to the effect that S. John’s 
narrative was the last in point of time ; and that he gave his 
testimony to the truth of what had been previously written.’ 


tents of the Acts of the Apostles regarded as a continuation of the former narrative : 
—the substance of the first seven chapters being described in the words, “‘ Ye shall 
be witnesses unto Me in Jerusalem ;” of the eighth and ninth chapters in the words, 
And in all Judea and Samaria ;” while chapters x.-xxviii. are summed up in the 
words, “ And unto the uttermost parts of the earth.” 

1 See Lyell’s “Principles of Geology,” 8th ed., p. 348. The principle on which 
the omission has been explained, viz., that Pliny’s “chief object was simply to give 
Tacitus a full account of the particulars of his uocle’s death,”"—suggests, in like man- 
ner, the explanation of the Eyangelists’ silence respecting subjects not connected 
with their “ chief object.” 

2 -Tév προαναγραφέντων τριῶν εἰς πάντας ἤδη καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν [Ἰωάννην] διαδε- 
δομένων, ἀποδέξασθαι μὲν φασὶν, ἀλήθειαν αὐτοῖς ἐπιμαρτυρήσαντα.--- σοὶ, Hist., lib. 
Ul. 6. xxiv. p. 116. The earlier writers by whom this fact has been stated are, the 
author of Muratori’s Fragment (ap. Routh, “Relig. Sacr.,” t. i. p. 394); Clemens 
Alex. in his ‘‘ Hypotyposes” (ap. Euseb., “Eccl. Hist.,” lib. vi. c. xiv. p. 274—Tov 
μέντοι ᾿Ιωάννην ἔσχατον, κ. τ. A.); 8. Victorinus (“qui sub finem szculi tertii flo- 
ruit; ita enim ille de Joanne Apostolo in ‘Commentario’ ei adscripto in Apocalyps- 
im, p. 1253, in ‘Biblioth. Parisinze PP.,’ t. i."—Routh. <bzd., p. 408); S. Epiphanius, 
“ Heeres.” li. 5. 12, p. 434. 8. Jerome sums up the earlier testimonies with the 
words: ‘“Joannes Apostolus * * * novissimus omnium scripsit Evangelium, 
rogatus ab Asize Episcopis, adversus Cerinthum, aliosque hzereticos #4) 60 oe ΤΠ (Ὁ 
aliam causam hujus scripture ferunt. Quod cum legisset [Joannes] Matthzei, Marci, 
et Luce volumina, probaverit quidem textum historiz, et vera eos dixisse firmaverit,” 
ke. De Vir. Illusir., 6. ix. t. ii. p. 829. “In ancient times,” writes Gieseler, “ they 


856 RECAPITULATION, [LECT. VIII 


The great historian of the Church then goes on to point out how 
S. John has supplied details which the other Evangelists had 
omitted ; and he concludes with the remark : ‘ One who attends 
to these circumstances car no longer entertain the opinion that 
the Gospels are at variance with each other.” It is interesting 
to observe from what a very early period this entire question 
has been discussed. It was impossible, indeed, not to have no- 
ticed the remarkable omission by 8. John of those facts which 
the Synoptical writers had recorded, but which, at the same 
time, his whole line of argument perpetually assumes to be well 
known.” It was equally impossible to have overlooked the so- 
licitude with which he often obviates,—by the introduction of a 
sentence,® or even of a single word, occurring, as one might at 
first sight imagine, without design,—some difficulty likely to 


regarded this Gospel as a supplement to the three former, as is expressed in the tra- 
dition that John tested, and approved, and completed them by his own.”—Die Enst. 
der schriftl. Hvang., s. 133. And Hug concludes, from both internal and external 
evidence: “John, therefore, saw the others; and this was one of the circumstances 
on which the plan and tendency of his own Gospel depended; and the selection of 
the facts to be introduced in it.”-—Hinleit., Th. ii. ο. 1. § ὅθ. 5. 183. I profess myself 
quite unable to understand how Dr. Davidson, who has fairly stated the evidence, 
can consider himself ‘justified in pronouncing the hypothesis in question [viz., that 
S, John had seen the Synoptical Gospels] unsupported either by external tradition 
or internal grounds." —An Introd. to the New Test., vol. i. p. 324. 

‘ Ole καὶ ἐπιστήσαντι, οὐκέτ᾽ ἂν δόξαι διαφωνεῖν ἀλλήλοις τὰ εὐαγγέλια .---- Πυϊά. 
p- 117. 

2 . g. the Transfiguration ; the fact of the descent of the Holy Ghost at Christ’s 
baptism,—the Baptist being introduced as referring to that fact in words which, 
without a previous knowledge of it, would have been, at least, exceedingly obscure 
(S. John, 1. 32-34). Especiatly remarkable is this Evangelist’s silence as to Christ’s 
miracles, on which his argument so constantly depends (e.g. ch. 11. 2; v. 36, and 
passim); but of which he has detailed only five. Who (remarks Hug, “ Einleit.,” 
loc. cit. ἃ 53, s. 176) was better fitted to describe the particulars with which the in- 
stitution of the Eucharist was accompanied than the disciple who, during the Supper, 
lay on Jesus’ bosom? And yet he alludes to it only to show that he designedly 
passed over the narrative because it needed no mention; while he recounts other in- 
cidental circumstances which are not found elsewhere: ‘‘ Now before the feast of the 
Passover, supper being ended (δείπνου γινομένου), He riseth, and took a towel, and 
girded Himself. After that He poureth water into a basin, and began to wash the 
Disciples’ feet. So after He had washed their feet, and was set down again—ava- 
πεσὼν πάλιν," &e.—ch. xiii. 1-12. 

3. Compare the remark, “For neither did His brethren believe on Him” (vii. 5), 
with the statement, ‘And when His friends (οἱ tap’ Αὐτοῦ) heard of it, they went 
out to lay hold on Him: for they said, He is beside Himself” (S. Mark, iii. 21). So 
also the particularity in S. John’s account of the raising of Lazarus from the dead— 
a miracle which was performed in the immediate neighborhood of Jerusalem, and in 
presence of a large assembly (ch. xi 18, 19)—was clearly designed to explain the 
Synoptists’ account of the rejoicing with which the people celebrated Christ’s entry 
into Jerusalem (S. Matt. xxi.; S. Mark, xi.; S. Luke, xix.); as well as the sudden 
determination of the Council to put Him to death (ch, xi. 47-53),—a resolution from 
which their fears seem to have frequently deterred them on former occasions: ef. ch. 
vil. 25; see also S. Matt. xxi. 46. 


LECT. VIII. ] | OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 357 


arise from a comparison of the narratives of his predecessors, 
To give an example :—According to 8. Matthew it was “ another 
maid ;” according to S, Mark, “a maid ;” and a man, according 
to δ. Luke, whose questioning led 8. Peter, on the second occa- 
sion, to deny his Master. ὃ. John, by means of a single express- 
ion, reconciles at once what might have appeared a contradiction 
in these statements, He tells us,—and we are to remember that 
he was an eye-witness of what passed,—that, at this moment, 
several persons together interrogated the Apostle: his descrip- 
tion of the circumstance is, “ They said, therefore, unto him.”* 
Thus we see that 8. John has, in certain cases, solved difticuities 
which, without his comment, might have been suggested by the 
narratives of the Synoptists : and surely we cannot believe that 
had any statements fairly open to objection really existed, they 
would have been permitted by him to remain without some sim- 
Uar explanation. We cannot doubt, therefore, that the contem- 
poraries of the Evangelists were altogether unconscious of such 
discordance ; and that they possessed the clue to those difficul- 
ties which to us appear so perplexing. Indeed the captious spirit 
of the Jews’ must necessarily have compelled the writers of the 


1 Eidev αὐτὸν GAA n—S. Matt. xxvi. 711; ἡ παιδίσκη iSotca—S. Mark, xiv. 69; 
ἕτερος ἰδὼν avtov—sS. Luke, xxii. 58; while 8S. John writes εἶπον οὖν aitG— 
Xviii. 25. Hug observes: ‘‘ Matthew (xxvi. 69-75) describes the denial by Peter, 
relating simply the fact, but not dwelling upon the place or persons who oceasioned 
it; in his footsteps Mark (xiv. 66-72) and Luke (xxii. 54-63). John, on the other 
hand, states very accurately the place of the transaction. It commenced in the palace 
of the High Priest Annas [xviii. 16]. There, in the court into which John had 
procured him admission, Peter denied our Lord, for the first time, to the woman who 
kept the door (ver. 17). John then changes the scene to the presence of Caiaphas, 
where the other three Evangelists first take up the narrative, and begin the story of 
Peter's denial of his Master [by no means implying, however, even by a casual phrase, 
that the first denial had not taken place previously]; while, according to John, he 
only finished, in this place, what he began in the house of Annas, and for the second 
and third time disowned acquaintance with Jesus (ver. 25-27).’—loc. cit. § 54. s. 180 
If we attend to the language of the context in this place, the explanation sug- 
gested by the English Version (viz. translating the ἀπέστειλεν [οὖν] Αὐτὸν ὁ "Avvac, 
kK. τ. Aver. 24, by, “Now Annas had sent Him bound unto Caiaphas”) seems 
wholly untenable; especially if we observe the impossibility of identifying the ex- 
amination of our Lord which S. John relates (ver. 19-23), with that before Caiaphas, 
as recorded by the Synoptists; and which 8. John has altogether omitted. Comparo 
Ebrard, loc. cit. s. 535 ff. 

* Gieseler, having quoted the testimony of S. Justin M. as to the exhibition of 
this spirit by the Jews (ὥσπερ yap ai μυῖαι ἐπὶ τὰ ἕλκη προστρέχετε καὶ ἐφίπτασθε. κἂν 
γὰρ μυρία τὶς εἴπῃ καλῶς, ἕν δὲ μικρὸν ὁτιοῦν εἴη μὴ εὐαρέστον ὑμῖν, ἢ μὴ νοούμενον, 
ἦ μὴ πρὸς τὸ ἀκριϑὲς τῶν μὲν πολλῶν καλῶν οὐ πεφροντίκατε, τοῦ δὲ μικροῦ ῥημα- 
τίου ἐπιλαμβάνεσθ:, κ. τ 2.—Dial. cum Tryph. § 115, p. 209), goes on to say: “Tt 
is clear that, under these circumstances, the strictest agreement alone could secure 
the Apostles from the reproach of contradicting each other; and that an exact selec 


358 BECAPITULATION, [LECT. VIIL 


Gospels of themselves to avoid even the semblance of any con. 
tradiction in records the design of which was to overthrow the 
exclusive claims of the children of Abraham. Nay, the estab- 
lished principles of Judaism must have rendered an avoidance of 
even seeming discrepancies essential to the acceptance of any 
historical narrative as deserving of belief :—for, as a well-known 
argument of Josephus informs us, a Jew considered no proof of 
the Divine origin of the Old Testament more conclusive, in con- 
troversy with a Gentile, than the absence of any contradictions 
in the several books of which it is composed.’ 

II. The question just examined refers to the supposed want 
of harmony between one sacred writer and another. The objec- 
tion which demands our notice in the next place is founded upon 
the alleged collision between the statements of Scripture and 
those of profane history. And here that want of argumentative 
fairness, so often pointed out in the reasoning employed by the 
impugners of Revealed Religion, cannot be passed over. In 
ordinary writings, when one author disagrees with another, the 
most captious critic contents himself with comparing the prob- 
abilities on both sides ; and, if he can discern no prospect of 
reconciling the conflicting accounts, he decides without hesita- 
tion in favor of that party whose veracity appears the more un- 
exceptionable. In the case of the Bible, however, the course 
pursued is very different. Should any statement of the Old, or 
of the New Testament, seem to be at variance with that of an 
ordinary historian, it is taken for granted, without further inquiry, 
that the sacred narrative is false. Every presumption in favor 
of the accuracy of the uninspired writer is brought prominently 
forward ; nor are Ais statements, as to matters of fact unnoticed 
by others, thought to require corroboration: while the assertion 
of a Prophet, or of an Evangelist, if similarly unsupported, is 


tion of Janguage was requisite in order to afford the malicious no opening for attack 
in this respect.”——Die Entst. der schriftl. Evang. s. 101. 

' See Lecture ii. page 68, note *; cf. too, Lecture v. p. 188, note. In addition to 
the “Contradictions” of Scripture, its alleged “Immoralities” (e. g. Jael’s putting 
Sisera to death; the command to Abraham to slay his son; the extermination of the 
Canaanites, &¢c.,) have supplied a fruitful source of objections, not, indeed, so much 
against the Inspiration of the Bible, as against its truth ;—professing, as it does, ἴα 
give an account of God’s dealings with man. In addition to Bishop Butler’s con- 
clusive argument on this subject (‘‘ Analogy,” Part τι. ch. iii), see the excellent re- 
marks of Dr. Arnold in his “Essay on the right Interpretation of the Scriptures’ 
(‘‘Sermons,” 4th ed., vol ii. p. 390, &.); and of Mr. Rogers, in “The Kclipse of 
Vaith,® p. 148, &e. =» 


LECT. VIII.] OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 359 


immediately subjected to an unscrupulous or prejudiced criticism. 
This is a species of unfairness to which the Bible, above all other 
books, affords an opportunity: for it is remarkable with what 
uniformity the sacred writers abstain from directly touching 
upon topics of common history, except in cases where their nar- 
rative absolutely requires it. There are, however, such points of 
contact with the ordinary events of the world ; and on these scep- 
tics are never slow to fasten. For example :—S. Luke, in the 
opening verses of the second and third chapters of his Gospel, 
alludes to external history. In the former passage’ the Evan- 
gelist, when enumerating the circumstances connected with the 
birth of Christ, dwells with much particularity on the fact that 
a general census had been decreed by the Emperor Augustus ; 
adding that this census “‘ was first made when Cyrenius was gov- 
ernor of Syria.” Against the truth of this statement Strauss 
argues, in the first place, that no author, except 8. Luke, makes 
mention of such a general census having been prescribed by 
the Emperor :’ and, secondly, that Tacitus informs us that Cy- 


1 )ξῆλθεν δόγμα παρὰ Καΐσαρος Αὐγούστου, ἀπογράφεσθαι πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην. 
Αὕτη ἡ ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Kupyviov.—S. Luke, ii. 2. 
The objections urged against this statement are as follows: (1.) There was no census 
of the ‘Orbis Romanus’ under Augustus. (2.) As πᾶσα 7 οἰκουμένῃ refers merely to 
Judea (cf. Acts, xi. 28), such a census could not have been held in what was not as 
yet a Roman Province; and which did not become so until Archelaus, Herod’s son, 
had been deposed by Augustus, after a reign of ten years. Herod, therefore, as ‘‘ Rex 
Socius,” would have conducted the census by his own authority, without the inter- 
vention of the Emperor. (3.) According to Tacitus, P. Sulp. Quirinius was first sent 
from Rome eleven or twelve years after the birth of Christ, to form Judea into a 
Roman Province; Sentius Saturninus being the Governor at the time of our Lord’s 
birth. From which premises it follows, that (4.) Joseph and Mary cannot have come 
to Bethlehem for the purpose stated by 8. Luke; and, consequently, this portion of 
his narrative is ‘‘unhistorical.” Although many, observes Tholuck, have adopted a 
theory of Inspiration, according to which the credibility of the religious contents of the 
Bible is not weakened by the historical mistakes of its authors; still “ were we to admit 
here such a nest of the rudest blunders, it may well be doubted whether the canon of 
credibility can apply to such an extent. Give up the occasion and the truth of the jour- 
ney to Bethlehem, and the truth of the Miraculous Birth at Bethlehem become equally 
mythical.” — Glaubwiird., s. 158. As to objections (1.) and (8.), see infra; with refer- 
ence to (2.), it is to be observed that Herod was no ‘‘ Rex Socius;” but merely a 
Governor, with a kind of regal authority, whom Augustus, notwithstanding Herod’s 
fidelity to M. Antonius, had, in an exceptional manner, and with his usual astute 
policy, continued to entrust with authority in Palestine. See W. Hoffmann’s “ Das 
Leben Jesu,” s. 233. 

2 Hoffmann (8. 231) replies with great force to this objection: ‘‘ Passages from 
Livy, Dio Cassius, Tacitus, &c., prove to the celebrated Savigny [‘‘ Zeitschrift fir 
geschichtl. Rechtswissenschaften,” vis 350], who has collected them, that ‘at the 
very commencement of this Emperor’s reign an effort was made to introduce a uni- 
form system of taxation into the Provinces.’” 58. Isidore of Seville, in a treatise 
compiled from historical sources extant in his time, and without any design of sup- 
porting S. Iuke’s statement, tells us: “Era singulorum annorum constituta est ὃ 


360 RECAPITULATION. [LECT. vil. 


renius was for the first time sent from Rome, as Proconsul of 
Syria, eleven or twelve years after the birth of Christ.’ In the 
second passage, 8. Luke mentions that when S. John the Baptist 
entered on his ministry Lysanias was Tetrarch of Abilene. 
Here, again, Strauss objects that Josephus, it is true, speaks of a 
Lysanias as governor of Abilene, but that the Jewish historian 
further states that this Lysanias had been put to death thirty- 
four years before the birth of Christ ; while neither Josephus, 


Czesare Augusto, quando primum censum exegit, ac Romanum orbem descripsit.”— 
Originum, lib. v. ο. 36, p. 41. So also Cassiodorus, one of the most learned men of 
his age (born circ. A. D. 469. He filled successively the highest civil and judicial 
offices, and was appointed Consul by Theodoric, A. D. 514), has preserved an Hpistle, 
entitled “‘Consulari Viro Tllustri, Theodoricus Rex,” appointing an umpire in a dis- 
pute relating to the division of certain iands. In this Epistle the passage occurs: 
“ Augusti siquidem temporibus Orbis Romanus agris divisus, censuque descriptus est ; 
ut possessio sua nulli haberetur incerta, quam pro tributorum susceperat quantitate 
solvenda.”— Variarum, lib. iii. Ep. 52, t. i. p. 57. The very nature of these quota- 
tions refutes the evasion of Strauss and Bauer :—viz., that the information which they 
convey respecting this census was borrowed from 5. Luke. According to Suetonius 
(‘“‘ Augustus,” ο. 27), “Censum populi ter egit [Augustus] primum ac tertium cum 
collega, medium solus;” and the monument of Ancyra indicates that the census which 
was carried into effect by himself alone fell in the year before the birth of Christ 
(Ideler, B. ii. s. 380, quoted by Hoffmann). These latter references, no doubt, refer in 
the first instance to the city of Rome; but they prove the Emperor's solicitude on 
the subject: and although S. Luke states that the “Decree” related to “‘all the 
world,” he does not state that it was everywhere carried out at the same time. 
Ebrard (8, 170) appeals to the “Breviarium Imperii” (Tac. “ Ann.” i. 11; Suet. 
“Octav.” ci.) detailing the “tributa aut vectigalia” “civium sociorumque” which Au- 
gustus left at his death. 

1 Ussher reconciles these statements (“‘ Annal. Vet. Test.” Elrington’s ed., vol. x. 
p. 471) by quoting the reference of Tacitus (“ Annal.,” lib. iii. c. 48) to P. Sulpicius 
Quirinius (the Cyrenius of 8. Luke): “Impiger militia et acribus ministeriis Con- 
sulatum sub D. Augusto; mox expugnatis per Ciliciam Homonadensium castellis, in- 
signia triumphi adeptus.” Cyrenius had been Consul A. τ. c. 742 (see Hoffmann, 
5. 236); and, therefore, according to the system of Augustus (cf Dio Cassius, lib. 
lili. 14), could not have gone to his Proconsulate in Cilicia until a. τ. c. 747. From 
Cilicia he might readily have been sent to the neighboring district of Syria, either to 
conduct the census with extraordinary powers; or, as the Emperor’s Procurator, with 
ordinary:—Cyrenius himself still retaining the Proconsulate of Cilicia, and Sentius 
Saturninus that of Syria. Josephus more than once, in a similar manner calls both 
Volumnius and Saturninus ἡγεμόνας of Syria, although Volumnius was merely ἐπίτροπος. 
or Procurator (B. J. lib. τ. xxvii. 2. t. ii, p. 124):—and thus we can at once explain 
Tertullian’s statement (‘‘ Ady. Marcion.,” lib. iv. e. 19, p. 532): “Census constat actos 
sub Augusto nunc in Judea per Sentium Saturninum.” S. Luke has preferred to 
bring forward the part taken in this transaction by Cyrenius, since he desired to 
combine it with his subsequent allusion (Acts, v. 37) to the second ἀπογραφή carried 
out by Cyrenius ten years later; his object being to point out that, of the two 
ἀπογραφαΐ conducted by the same magistrate, that connected with the birth of Christ 
was the earlier:—wwhich exactly agrees with the statement of S. Justin M— 
ἀπογραφῆς οὐσης ἐν τῇ ‘lovdaia τότε πρώτης ἐπὶ Κυρηνίου, κ. τ. A—Dial. cum 
Tryph. ἃ 18, p. 175. In confirmation of this view, Hoffmann (loc. cit.) draws attention 
to the information, given by Suidas (“ Lexicon,” 5, v. ἀπογραφη), that twenty Com- 
missaries had been appointed by Augustus to carry out the census through the whole 
Empire. Ὁ δὲ Καῖσαρ Αὔγουστος εἴκοσιν ἄνδρας τοὺς ἀρίστους τὸν βίον καὶ Td τρόπον 
ἐπιλεξάμενος, ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τὴν viv τῶν ὑπηκύων ἐξέπεμψε δὶ ὧν ἀπογοαφὰς ἐποιήσατα 
τῶν τε ἀνθρώπων καὶ οὐσιῶν. 


LECT ΓΠ|.] OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 361 


nor any author of that time, alludes to the existence of a second 
ruler of Abilene who bore’ this name. As I have already ob- 
served, it does not lie within my province to examine these ob- 
jections in detail ; I must confine myself to suggesting certain 
principles which may enable us to form a just estimate of similar 
exceptions, when urged against the veracity or the accuracy of 
the sacred writers. 

In the cases before us, we may fairly demand for 8. Luke— 
waiving, as before, his claim to Inspiration—the same Justice 
which all persons yield to any ancient historian whose facts are 
doubted or denied. When instances of such assumed inaccuracy 
are alleged, two simple questions are proposed. In the first 
place, does what we know of the external relations of the author 
1o the events which he records render it probable that he could 
have committed, in a single passage of his narrative, two such 


1 Tholuck (Joc. cit. s. 200), admitting the accuracy of Strauss’s historical represen- 
tation, naturally asks, where is the difficulty of supposing the existence of a second 
Lysunias, who was also Tetrarch of Abilene at the time assigned by 8S. Luke? And 
he quotes the still stronger case afforded by Tacitus (writing of A. D. 36), where he 
speaks of “Clitarum natio, Cappadoci Archelao subjecta” (* Annal.” vi. c. 41), while 
he also states (‘‘ Annal.” ii. ο. 42; cf. too, Suetonius “ Tiberius,” cap. viii.) that Arche- 
laus had died, A. D. 17; and that Cappadocia had then become a Roman Province. 
See, to the same effect, Winer, “ Real-Worterb.,” art. ‘‘ Abilene.” Strauss, however, 
refuses to accept this reply of Tholuck, alleging that the nature of Tacitus’ statements 
of itself supplies ‘a clear historical datum that there were two such persons:” but 
that “it is quite otherwise when, as in the case of Lysanias, two writers have each 
one of the same name, but assign him distinct epochs.”—The Life of Jesus, part ii. 
ch. i. § 44 (vol. i p. 302), Ebrard, however (‘“Kritik der ev. Gesch.,” s. 180 ff), 
proves that this entire objection is nothing more than an historical blunder on the 
part of Strauss himself, The statements of Josephus, on which the objection is 
founded, are as follows: Ptolemzeus, son of Mennzeus, ruled over Chalcis (‘‘ Ant.,” 
XIV. vii. 4, t. i. p. 696); and was succeeded by his son Lysanias (“ Bel. Jud.” 1. xiii. 
1, Ὁ. ii. p. 83), This Lysanias of Chaleis was put to death (B. C. 34) by Antonius, at 
the instigation of Cleopatra (‘‘ Ant.,” Xv. iv. 1, t. i. p. 749). Seventy-five years later 
(viz. A. D. 41) Agrippa I. was restored by Claudius to the kingdom of his ancestors, 
and received in addition an “ Abila of Lysanias’—ABiAav τὴν Λυσανίου (“ Ant.,” 
xix. v. 1, t. i. p. 943; “Bel. Jud.” π΄. xi. 5, t. ii. p. 172). This Lysanias is assumed 
by Strauss to have been the same person as the Lysanias of Chalcis, who had been 
put to death by Antonius; and on this assumption, which, however, is utterly sub- 
verted by another statement of Josephus, his objection rests. ‘This additional state- 
ment of Josephus is to the effect that Claudius removed Agrippa 11. (A. 1), 52) “from 
Chalcis [the kingdom, be it remembered, of Strauss’s Lysanias] to a greater kingdom, 
giving him, in addition, the kingdom of Lysanias (ἐκ δὲ τῆς Χαλκίδος ᾿Αγρίππαν εἰς 
μείζονα βασιλείαν μετατίθησι * * * προσέθηκε δὲ τήν Te Λυσανίου βασιλείαν)."--- 
Bel. Jud. τι. xii. 8, t. ii, p. 176,—words which, according to Strauss, must mean 
“ Agrippa was deprived of Chalcis, receiving in exchange a larger kingdom, and also 
Chailcis !” Hence, therefore, Josephus does make mention of a later Lysanias; and, 
by doing so, fully corroborates the fact of S. Luke’s intimate acquaintance with the 
tangled detaiis of Jewish history in his Gay. Even Meyer (in loc.) fully acaepts this 
conclusion of Ebrard: “So wird die Notiz des Luk. durch Joseph. nicht ais Jrrihum 
dargestellt, sondern bestitiget. 


362 RECAPITULATION. |LECT. Vii 


blunders as are charged against our Evangelist ; especially when 
writing of facts notorious at the time? And, secondly, is his 
historical inaccuracy, elsewhere, so patent that such anachron- 
isms cannot surprise us? If each of these questions must be 
answered in the negative, then the objector’s interpretation of 
the passages on which he insists would at once, in the case of a 
profane historian, be set aside as being utterly improbable ἃ pri- 
ori: and if we cannot point out the fallacy of the objection by 
translating the historian’s words differently,’ we forthwith enter 
on the path of historical inquiry in order to arrive at the author’s 
real meaning. Now ὃ. Luke’s ‘ Preface’ supplies a sufficient 
answer to the former of the questions just proposed. There he 
explicitly lays down, not only that the details of his narrative 
‘‘ were delivered” to him by those who “‘from the beginning were 
eye-witnesses ; but also that he had “ perfect understanding of 
all things from the very first.” A review of his allusions, in the 
Acts of the Apostles, to the particulars of the Roman Govern- 


1 The following modes of translating S. Luke, ii. 2, have been suggested: (1.) 
πρώτη stands for προτέρα ; and ἡγεμονεύοντος depends on the comparative. Thus we 
should render ‘‘ This census took place before Cyrenius was Preetor of Syria”—words 
which are added in order to obviate the possibility of misconception—just as S. John 
(xiv. 22) has inserted the parenthesis, “ not Iscariot.” For the use of πρώτη for προ- 
τέρα, cf. 5. John, i. 15, 30; and for the use of the participle (as if S. Luke had written 
πρὸ τοῦ ἡγεμονεύειν), Jer. Xxix, 2 (LXX.): οὗτοι of λόγοι τῆς βίβλου, ode ἀπέστειλεν 
Ἱερεμίας * * * ὕστερον ἐξελθόντος Ἶεχονίου, k. τ. λ.---ἰ, ©. “after Je 
chonias had departed,” instead of ὕστέρον τοῦ ἐξελθεῖν. 

(2.) Πρώτη is to be taken in connexion with the verb ἐγένετο ; and stands in place 
of the adverb—* This census took place for the first time under Cyrenius’—a paren- 
thetical clause, denoting that the Emperor’s decree was first carried out under Cy- 
renius, and that then for the first time was taxation imposed upon the Jews:—the 
ἀπογραφή, at first imperfect, being at length completed, and rendered an actual d7o- 
τίμησις. 

(3.) By changing the accents; if in place of αὕτη we read avr7:—rendering, “ In 
the days of Herod the decree went forth, but the taxing itself took place for the first 
time under Cyrenius.” Strauss admits that by this translation the chief difficulty is 
“most easily” removed; but he strongly protests against such an arbitrary alteration 
in the text! ‘It is well known,” observes Tholuck, (8. 186) “that, with the excep- 
tion of the single codex Ὁ. Claromontanus, our uncial-codices are written without ac- 
cent and spiritus; and even as to this codex, connoisseurs decide that, in the great 
majority of passages, the accents have been added by a later hand. Griesbach, 
Symb. Crit. ii. s. 82.” So also Hofmann, ‘‘ Weissagung und Erfiillung,” ii. 85, 54, 

(4.) S. Luke desired to show that the birth of the Messiah coincided with the 
political slavery of his nation which now, for the first time, was practically exhibited 
in consequence of the Emperor's edict: ‘‘ The taxing itself [see (3.)] took place—and 
this, too, the first unheard-of insult of the kind!—when Cyrenius, &c.,”—the census 
at our Lord’s birth being regarded merely as the preliminary stage of the taming 
(ἀπογραφή being susceptible of this double sense) conducted by Cyrenius (Acts, v. 
37):—both events being recessarily known to, and thts distinguished by 8. Luke 
Of. Ebrard, oc. cit. 5. 175 ff 


LECT. VIII. ] OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 363 


ment, and to other circumstances of the time, in like manner, 
affords an answer in the negative to the second question.’ 

Of 5. Luke’s minute accuracy I proceed to give a well-known 
instance ; which I would preface by a parallel example illustra- 
tive of the apparent contradictions so constantly to be met with 
in ordinary history.2, The medals struck for the coronation of 
Louis XIV. gave a different day from that which all contempo- 
rary historians agree in fixing for the date of that event. Of all 
these writers one only has noticed a circumstance which accounts 
for this discrepancy : for he alone mentions that the coronation 
had been appointed to take place on the day given by the medals, 
—which were accordingly prepared,—but that circumstances 
caused a delay till the date assigned by the historians. Nothing 
can be more simple than this: and yet in a thousand years, had 
no such explanation been given, antiquarians would have been 
sadly perplexed in their efforts to reconcile the contradiction. 
Let us now turn to the parallel case in the Acts of the Apostles : 
—§. Luke in the thirteenth chapter gives the title of Proconsul’ 
to the Governor of Cyprus. In the division, however, of the 
Roman Empire by Augustus, this island had been reserved for 
his own jurisdiction : and consequently its Governor must have 
borne the rank of Procurator ;—that of Proconsul being appro- 
priated to those who ruled the provinces which the Emperor had 
ceded to the Senate. The title here assigned by 8. Luke to Ser- 
gius Paulus had for a long time perplexed commentators ; who 
knew not how to reconcile the statement of the sacred historian 
with the assumed facts of the case. Some coins, however, were 
found bearing the effigy of the Emperor Claudius ; and in the 


1 In illustration of the perplexity of Jewish history at this period—not to mention 
the frequent redistribution of territory—consider the mistakes likely to occur in the 
case of writers imperfectly informed as to the family of Herod, arising from the iden- 
tity of the name Herod for the father and all his descendants: e. g. S. Epiphanius 
(“‘ Heeres.” xxx. 13, t. i. p. 138) quotes a passage from the Gospel of the Ebionites, 
in which Herod the Great is confounded with Herod Antipas. Cf Tholuck, loc. cit. 
Β. 159, w. 162. 

2 “ Apparent contradictions, indeed, must meet us in every part of history ; the 
difficulty is where to lay the blame. The medals struck for the coronation of Louis 
XIV. give a different day from that which all contemporary historians accord in fix- 
ing for the date of that event. Of them all, one only, D. Ruinart, has noticed a cir- 
cumstance which reconciles this discrepancy. For he alone has recorded,” ἄρ. Wise- 
man, Lectures on the Connexion between Science and Revealed Religion, &c., vol ii 

. 125. 
τα, ᾿Ανθύπατος, Acts, xiii. 1. See Tholnes, ins. cit. 8, 112 Paley, “ Kvidencea” 


Part π. ch vi. 


364 RECAPITULATION, (LECT. VIR 


centre of the reverse oceurs the word KYIIPIQN, while the sur- 
rounding legend gives the title in question of Proconsul to an in- 
dividual who must have been the immediate successor or prede- 
cessor of Sergius Paulus." In addition to this evidence, a 
passage has been pointed out in the writings of Dio Cassius who 
mentions that Augustus, subsequently to his original settlement, 
had changed Cyprus and Gallia Narbonensis into Senatorial 
Provinces ; the historian adding, as if with the design of estab- 
lishing 8. Luke’s accuracy, “‘ And so it came to pass, that Pro- 
consuls began to be sent to these nations 8150. Had the 
writings of Dio Cassius perished amid the wreck of ancient liter- 
ature, and the coins alluded to never been found, we should, un- 
questionably, have seen this hypothetical blunder of the inspired 
historian foremost among the array of cases adduced by such 
writers as Strauss. Is not the Christian Apologist therefore fully 
justified in deprecating the precipitancy of criticism ? Has he 
not ample grounds for maintaining that difficulties, such as 
those which we have considered, arise from our ignorance of the 
whole of the case ; and that we have good reason to expect that 
‘hey eventually will disappear as similar evidence accumulates ?° 


1 ἘΠῚ KOMINIOY ITPOKAOY ANOYHATOY. Hug, “ Hinleit.,” 1. § 4. 5.21. 

2 Καὶ οὕτως ἀνθύπατοι καὶ ἐς ἐκεῖνα τὰ ἐθνη πέμπεσθαι 7pSavto.—Dio Cassius, liv. 
4, So also, the title ἀνθύπατος is assigned with the strictest propriety to Gallio (Acts, 
xviii. 12, &e.). Achaia had been ἃ “ Provincia Senatoria” (Dio Cassius, liii. 12) but 
it had been changed by Tiberius into a “ Provincia Imperatoria” (Tacitus, “ Annal,,” 
i. 76), and was, therefore, governed by Procurators. It had, however, been again 
restored to the Senate by Claudius (Suetonius, ‘“‘ Claudius,” xxv.), on which its rulers 
resumed their title of Proconsuls. Again: in Acts, xxviii. 7, the ruler of Melita is 
styled ὁ πρῶτος τῆς vycov—an appellation in itself suitable, since Malta was a depende 
ency on Sicily (Cicero, 4. “ Verr.,” ¢. xviii.). A coin, however, has been found on 
which a Roman knight Prudens is styled ΠΡΩ͂ΤΟΣ MEAITAIQN: ef. Tholuck, loc. cit, 
s. 172. Again: in Acts, viii. 26, the city Gaza is described as being “desert.” “It 
is true,” observes Hug (loc. cit. s. 39), “this was often its fate; but it was invariably 
rebuilt, and was so in the days of Herod the Great, not long before the event here re- 
lated. Uncommon erudition has been employed to solve this difficulty; but there 
are two words in Josephns which have escaped the learned, from which we learn 
how well Luke was acquainted with an event concerning which all history else is 
silent.” During the commotions which preceded the siege of Jerusalem, the Jews 
laid waste many towns in Syria and the vicinity; and among these was Gaza: ἐπὶ 
ταύταις πυρποληθείσαις ᾿Ανθηδόνα καὶ Τάζαν κατεσκαπτον.--- Βοῖ. Jud., τι. xviii. 1, t. 11, 
p. 197; and in this state S. Luke describes it. ἡ 

5. Under the head of “contradictions” or “ real discrepancies,” some writers place 
those seeming variations of statement, which are at once accounted for by errors ia 
the transcription of the early Hebrew MSS., in which letters or cyphers have been 
made use of to express nwinbers. Εἰ. g., in the account of the plagues between 
which God commanded David to choose, we read of “ three [3 == 1] years’ famine,”/— 
1 Chron, xxi. 12; for which the transcriber of 2 Sam. xxiv. 13, has substituted 
“seven” (71): the LXX., in both places, having read 3. Again: according to 2 
Chron. viii, 10, the number of “Solomon’s officers that bare rule over the people” was 


LECT. VIII. ] OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 265 


III. Having thus referred to the arguments against the in- 
spiration of Scripture, founded upon the supposed fact that its 
authors contradict each other, and that they advance statements 
at variance with the accounts of profane bistory,---it remains to 
examine the assertion, that the language of the Bible is opposed 
to many truths which the progress of Philosophy has brought to 
hght in unveiling the secrets of Nature. The rapid strides with 
which the material sciences have advanced in our own age ren- 
der an examination of this objection more than ever necessary : 


25025; for which we now read 27 550, in 1 Kings, ix. 23. In 2 Kings, viii. 
26, it is said that Ahaziah was 22 (33) years old when he began to reign; in 2 Chron, 
xxii. 2, the present Hebrew text gives his age as 42 (372}—an evident oversight of 
the transcriber; since from ch. xxi. 20, we know that his father died when only 40 
years old. Here for 5 (20) has been substituted 7 (40), which was formerly shaped 
2 (see Montfaucon’s “ Prelim. in Origenis Hexapla,” p. 22). This same interchange 
of > = 20, for 2 40, may be noticed again in Neh. vii. 44, where the number of 
the children of Asaph is given as 148, instead of 128, Ezra, ii. 41. 

To take another class of examples:—In 2 Sam. viil. 4, David took from Hadade- 
zer 700 horsemen: for which we read 7000 in 1 Chron. xviii. 4. Here there is an 
obvious interchange by the transcriber of 1 (700), for ¥(7000); cf. the same inter- 
change of 700 and 7000 in 2 Sam. x. 18, and 1 Chron. xix. 18. Again :—in 1 Sam, 
vi. 19, we read that the Lord smote 50,070 of the men of Bethshemesh; while in the 
Syriac and Arabic Versions the number is stated to be 5070. In 1 Kings, iv. 26, 
“Solomon had 40,000 stalls of horses;” in 2 Chron. ix. 25, we read of but 4000. 
Let us now consider a case which has supplied Mr. Coleridge with an objection 
(“ Confess. of an Enquir. Spirit,” Letter vi.):—“ Abijah set the battle in array with 
an army of 400,000 chosen men: Jeroboam also set the battle in array against him 
with 800,000 chosen men”—2 Chron. xiii, 3; and “there fell down slain of Israel 
500,000 chosen men.”—ver. 17. Does not the analogy of the cases last cited at once 
suggest that here, too, each number has been multiplied by ten? Dr. Kennicott 
(“ Dissert. on the state of printed Hebrew Text,” p. 533) observes that the smaller 
numbers are given in the old Latin translation of Josephus; and we may fairly pre- 
sume that the Greek text formerly gave the same, from the fact that “ Abarbanel 
[see Meyer's ‘‘ Chronicon,” p. 797] accuses Josephus of having made Jeroboam’s loss 


no more than 50,000, contrary to the Hebrew text.” ‘An Arabic cipher,” adds Dr. 
Kennicott, might very easily be added or omitted, because it is nothing more than 
our period (.).” ‘That the Hebrews,” writes Movers, “had certain signs to denote 


numbers is undeniable. * * * The ancient Phoen'cians and Aramzeans had 
also a system of ciphers, in all essent:als the same; and since the Hebrews had con- 
stant intercourse especially with the latter, they must have been acquainted with it.” 
—Krit. Untersuch. iib. die bibl. Chronik, 8. 54, These remarks are fully confirmed by 
the existenge of numeral letters on the coins of the Maccabees.—(Ibid. 5, 60.) 

The remark of Mr. Rogers on this subject is open to serious objection :—‘ We are 
fully disposed to concede to the objector that there are in the books of Scripture, not 
only apparent but real discrepancies,—a point which many of the advocates of Chris- 
tianity are indeed reluctant to admit, but which. we think, no candid advocate will 
feel to be the less true. * * * The discrepancies to which we refer are just those 
which, in the course of the transmission of ancient books, Divine or human, through 
many ages,—their constant transcription by different hands,—their translation into 
various languages,—may not only be expected to occur, but which must occur, unless 
there be a perpetual series of most minute and ludicrous miracles.”—Reason and 
Yaith, p. 12. This sense of the phrase ‘real discrepancies” is certainly not that in 
which it is generally understood: and the employment of it is unquestionably 7a! 
"ulated to mislead. 


366 RECAPITULS SION, [LECT. VID, 


and I feel particularly called upon to consider what force it may 
possess, because, as I conceive, the answers usually given to it 
concede almost everything for which one need care to contend, 
The objection may be stated as follows :—The language of Scrip- 
ture, when touching upon topics which involve allusions to the 
results of Science, is expressed so as to betray complete ignorance 
of those laws of Nature which modern researches have brought to 
light : and consequently (it is argued) the Book in which such 
ignorance is displayed cannot have been inspired by the Holy 
Ghost. The popular form under which the objection is com- 
monly urged will fairly exhibit the force of this argument against 
Inspiration. In this form it was, I believe, first suggested by 
Spinoza : and it is founded on a principle to which, somewhat 
differently applied, Galileo was the victim. We read in the 
book of Joshua, ‘Then spake Joshua to the Lord * * #* 
and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon 
Gibeon ; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the Sun 
stood still, and the Moon stayed, until the people had avenged 
themselves upon their enemies. * * * So the Sun stood 
still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down, about a 
whole day :’"—of which passage it is said, that the motion as- 
cribed by its writer to the Sun is in manifest contradiction to an 
established law of Nature. 

The usual reply to this objection is as follows :—‘ Your re- 
mark is, in point of fact, well founded; the contradiction which 
you urge does really exist: but Scripture was not intended to 
teach mankind the conclusions of Natural Philosophy ; and you 
are not entitled to expect that its statements on such topics shall 
be found in accordance with the results of scientific discovery.’ 
To a certain extent, all will admit the force of such an answer : 
for, as it has been justly said, “ to seek for an exposition of the 
phenomena of the natural world among the records of the moral 
destinies of mankind, would be as unwise as to look for rules of 


1 “Multi, quia ..lunt concedere in ccelis aliquam posse dari mutationem, ium 
locum ita explicant, ut nihil simile dicere videatur; alii autem qui rectius philosophari 
didicerunt, quon‘am intelligunt terram moveri, solem contra quiescere, sive circum 
terram non moveri, summis viribus idem ex Scriptura, quamvis aperte reclamanie, ex: 
torquere conantur.”—Tract. Theol. Pol., cap. ii. 

2 Josh. x. 12-14. Of “Τὸ shall come to pass in that day, that I will cause the 
Bun to go down at noon, and I will darken the earth in th> clear day”—Amos, 
viii. 9; “'The Sun and Moon stood still in their habitation." —Hab iii 11. 


LECT. VIII.] OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 367 


moral government in a treatise on chemistry.”’ But I altogether 
deny that the concession implied, at the same time, in such an 
answer,—namely, that there does exist a real contradiction be- 
tween this statement of the book of Joshua and the results of 
Science,—is justified by anything in the sacred narrative. Let 
us examine more nearly the bearing of the objection, as well as 
the cause which has produced in the language of Scripture even 
a semblance of opposition to physical facts. 

Now, at the outset, I would observe,—and this no one can 
deny who admits, in any degree, the force of what the objector 
has here urged against the accuracy of the sacred writers,—that 
there are very many passages in the Bible, in addition to the one 
before us, which are equally obnoxious to the same exception. 
In the account of Abraham’s sacrifice, for example, we read, “ It 
came to pass that when the Sun went down.”’ §o also, in the 
Gospels, our Lord Himself has spoken in a similar manner. He 
tells us that our “‘ Father which is in Heaven maketh His Sun to 
rise on the evil and on the good.”* In all such instances the al- 
leged ‘‘ contradiction” to scientific truth is, to the fullest extent, 
as patent as in the case of “‘ Joshua’s miracle :” and it cannot be 
too frequently repeated, that they who press the argument which 
we are considering must not be allowed to pause at the example 


1 “ Allusions and facts relating to the material world are, indeed, incidentally in- 
troduced into this Spiritual Revelation, both in the way of historical record, and apt 
moral illustration; and when so introduced, bearing as they do the direct impress of 
Divine Inspiration, they are religiously to be received as undoubted facts; but as facts, 
nevertheless, to be read, and understood by the light of that other more express and 
explicit revelation of Himself in the ways of His natural operations, which God addi- 
tionally, but equally under the sovereign impress of His hand, has opened to us in 
the unfolded volume of His Works.”—Gray, Harm. of Scripture and Geology, 2d ed., 
p. 23. An interesting example of such allusions by the sacred writers to the facts 
of the natural world has been pointed out by one of the most distinguished geolo- 
gists of the day. It has been found that the distribution of gold in its original vein- 
stone, or parent rock, differs from that of every other metal in the superficial range 
of its particles or threads. Lodes of iron, copper, and argentiferous lead ores, when 
followed downwards, generally become more and more productive—the reverse being 
the ease with gold. ‘Such has been the loss attending deep gold mining,” observes 
Sir R. Murchison, “that it has passed into a proverb with the Spaniards, * * * 
Tn Europe also the same law has been found to prevail, of the deterioration of the 
quality of gold veins in depth * * * showing how modern researches sustain 
the truthfulness of the words of Job—‘ Surely there is a vein for the silver,’ and the 
earth ‘hath dust of gold’ (Job, xxviii. 1, 6)."—Athenewm, March 9, 1850, No. 1167, 

. 266. 
Ε 2 Gen. xv. 17; cf. ver. 12. See also: “ And as he passed over Penuel the Sun 
rose upon him,.”—xxxii. 31. ‘The Sun also ariseth, and the Sun goeth down, and 
hasteth to his place where he arose.”—Hecl. i. 5; ef Ps. xix. 5, 6; &e., &e. 
* S. Matt. v. 45. 


368 RECAPIPTULATION | LECT. VIIL 


which serves as its popular representative. It would not be dif- 
ficult, indeed, to multiply illustrations : for there are numerous 
instances in which the language of Scripture presents difficulties 
precisely analogous. The sacred writers describe God as “ sitting 
upon His throne :” they tell us of the pleasures which are at 
‘His right hand ;” and how “ His eyes behold the children of 
men.” But that all such expressions are employed solely through 
condescension’ to human imperfection, will assuredly be hereafter 
perceived as vividly, as all now feed them to be inadequate,—for 
then “‘ we shall know, even as also we are known.” And yet, 
who that believes does not gratefully accept, as the clearest in- 
timation of the Divine benignity, such language of Inspiration ; 
by means of which He, Whom ‘‘ Heaven, and the Heaven of 
Heavens, cannot contain,” becomes a possible subject of human 
thought ? while, on the other hand, they who now venture to 
take exceptions against its use must confess that they are in- 
capable of forming an adequate conception of even a single at- 
tribute of God. 

These considerations being premised, the objection before us 
is, 1 submit, on two distincts grounds, untenable. In the first 
place, it is to be borne in mind, that whatever difficulty the case 
presents arises altogether from the necessity of making human 
, language the vehicle of communication to human beings. It is 
conceivable that the writers of Scripture should have made use 
of one or other of two languages :—that of Sense, as objects ap- 
pear to the beholder on this earth ; or that of Science. Now it 
is obvious that the language of Science would have been, in 
every point of view, unsuited for their purpose. ‘‘ Science is con- 
stantly teaching us to describe known facts in new language ; 
but the language of Scripture is always the same, And not only 
so, but the language of Scripture is necessarily adapted to the 
common state of man’s intellectual development, in which he ir 
supposed not to be possessed of Science, Hence, the phrases 
used by Scripture are precisely those which Science soon teaches 
man to consider as inaccurate. Yet they are not, on that ac- 
count, the less fitted for their proper purpose: for if any terms 
had been used, adapted to a more advanced state of knowledge. 
they must have been unintelligible among those to whom the 


‘ Cf. supra, Lecture ii. pp. 71-77. 


LECT VIIr.] OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 369 


Scripture was first addressed.”” The only language which is 
fixed is that of ordinary life ; whereby phenomena are described 
as they appear to Sense. The terms used in Science change as 
each new system is proposed :—in Botany the classification of 
Jussieu differs from that of Linnzeus ; in Optics the nomencla- 
ture of Newton differs from that of Fresnel. It is plain, there- 
fore,—and the very design of Scripture proves it to be necessary, 
that the language of Inspiration must have been the language of 
all mankind. To press as an objection the original and literal 
sense of particular words and phrases, may, no doubt, exhibit 
the only channel of conveying knowledge, language, as being, 
like all else that is human, alloyed with imperfection :* we must 
remember, however, that the earth is our habitation ; and that 
Scripture was composed as a record for man. The sacred histo- 
rian, consequently, has drawn up his narrative, as a narrative of 
facts can only be drawn up, in the language of those for whom 
he writes. The Judge of Israel addresses his prayer to God ; 


1 Whewell, ‘‘ Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences,” vol. i. p. 686. Again:— 
“The meaning which any generation puts upon the phrases of Scripture depends, 
more than is at first supposed, upon the received philosophy of the time. Hence, 
while men imagine that they are contending for Revelation, they are, in fact, con- 
tending for their own interpretation of Revelation, unconsciously adapted to what 
they believe to be rationally probable. And the new interpretation, which the new 
philosophy requires, and which appears to the older school to be a fatal violence done 
to the authority of religion, is accepted by their successors without the dangerous re 
sults which were apprehended. When the language of Scripture, invested with its 
new meaning, has become familiar to men, it is found that the ideas which it calls up 
are quite as reconcilable as the former ones were with the soundest religious views. 
And the world then looks back with surprise at the error of those who thought that 
the essence of Revelation was involved in their own arbitrary version of some col- 
lateral circumstance. At the present day we can hardly conceive how reasonable men 
should have imagined that religious reflections on the stability of the earth, and the 
bear..y and use of the luminaries which revolve round it, would be interfered with 
by its being acknowledged that this rest and motion are apparent only.” —History of 
the Inductive Sciences, Book vy. vol. i. p. 424. 

2 Bishop Butler, when developing his remark, that “we are not in any sort com- 
petent judges, what supernatural instruction were to have been expected,” observes in 
illustration: ‘So likewise the imperfections attending the only method by which na- 
ture enables and directs us to communicate our thoughts to each other, are innumera- 
ble. Language is, in its very nature, inadequate, ambiguous, liable to infinite abuse,” 
&c.— Analogy, Part ii. ch. iii, And Dugald Stewart writes: “I cannot help pausing 
a little to remark how much more imperfect language is than is commonly supposed, 
when considered as an organ of mental intercourse. * * * Hven in conversing 
on the plainest and most familiar subjects, however full and circumstantial our state- 
ments may be, the words which we employ, if examined with accuracy, will be found 
to do nothing more than to suggest hints to our hearers, leaving by far the principal 
part of the process of interpretation to be performed by the mind itself. In this re- 
spect the effect of words bears some resemblance to the stimulus given to the memory 
and imagination by an outline or a shadow, exhibiting the profile of a countenance 
iamiliar to the eye.”-—Philosophical Essays, v. ch. 1. 


24 


370 RECAPITULATION. [LECT. VIIL 


and that prayer is recorded in the form in which it was uttered 
A miracle is wrought for the deliverance of the people ; and that 
miracle is recorded as human Sense discerned it :—and it is 
manifest that no other language than that of the sacred writer 
could have been employed, even by a historian of our own day,’ 
without disclosing the manner in which the miracle had been 
effected.” 

In the second place, this objection, as employed in the case 
before us, is altogether set aside by attending to that distinction 
between Revelation and Inspiration to which I have so often ad- 
verted ; and of which this example of Joshua’s miracle is perhaps 


1 Historians of the present age can describe the brilliant rising of “the Sun of 
Austerlitz” without being considered ignorant of the laws of nature: nay, the most 
celebrated astronomers, even when explaining the principles of their own science, 
employ the language of Sense. Sir J. Herschel tells his readers that “the Sun, which 
at a considerable altitude always appears round, assumes, as tt approaches the horizon, 
a flattened or oval outline.”— Outlines of Astronomy, p. 34. Again: on crossing the 
equator the stars which at the spectator’s “original station described their whole 
diurnal circles above his horizon, and never set, now describe them entirely below it, 
and never rise.”—Jbid., p. 46;—so universal, when touching upon the province of 
phenomena, is the employment by all writers of the language of Sense. In the words 
of Kepler (quoted by Mr. Gray, loc. cit., p. 28): ‘‘ Astronomy unfolds the causes of 
natural things; it professedly investigates optical illusions. For even we astronomers 
do not pursue this science with the design of altering common language. We say 
with the common people, the planets stand still, or go down; the Sun rises and sets. 
These forms of speech we use with the common people: meaning only, that so the 
thing uppears to us, although it is not truly so, as all astronomers are agreed. How 
much less should we require that the Scriptures of Divine Inspiration, setting aside 
the common modes of speech, should shape their words according to the model of the 
natural sciences; and by employing a dark and inappropriate phraseology about things 
which surpass the comprehension of those whom it designs to instruct, perplex the 
simple people of God, and thus obstruct its own way towards the attainment of the 
far more exalted end at which it aims.” 

2 The reserve (involved in the very nature of a Miracle) with which the Scripture 
narrative has treated the modus operandi here, as in the case of all other exhibitions 
of Divine power, has not been respected by either the assailants or the defenders of 
Inspiration. Thus, a very amiable writer, M. Gaussen, undertakes to explain the 
miracle before us: “It is easy to understand that if God, in the day of the battle of 
Beth-horon, had employed two-thirds of a minute to arrest, by brief and successive 
retardations, the rotat‘on of our globe,” &e. On which he adds, “It will, perhaps 
here be objected that the rotation of the earth at Beth-horon is twenty-seven times 
more rapid than that of a steam-carriage ona railroad, It is true;—but since the 
force of retardation necessary to overcome a given impulsion, is in inverse proportion 
to the time it occupies, the miracle would be accomplished in eighteen minutes. Let 
us suppose, then, eighteen minutes, instead of forty seconds, to completely arrest the 
movement of the earth at the voice of Joshua; and then ‘the warring armies, in- 
stead of being swept as chaff before the tempest,’ would no more feel what was going 
on than do, at present, thousands of railroad travellers, when stopping at the assigned 
stations.” M. Gaussen enters still more deeply into the successive steps of the pro- 
cedure: “ Let us suppose a double concussion communicated to the earth, above and 
below its centre, in two opposite and parallel directions; and it will be explained how 
rctation on its axis may have been suspended, without its progressive motion being 
at all affected.”—-Theopneustia, p. 174, &e. 


LECT. VIII. ] OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 371 


the most striking illustration.’ It is assumed by the objector,-— 
and in this assumption hes the whole strength of his argument, 
—that the inspired language of Scripture was directly commu- 
nicated to its writers by the Holy Ghost: that is to say, its sev- 
eral statements, whether historical or doctrinal, are assumed to 
be the result of an immediate infusion of both words and thoughts 
into the minds of the human agents who composed the different 
parts of the Bible. In short, the objection before us rests upon 
the supposition that the passage against which it is directed is 
not the inspired narrative of an historical event faithfully related 
as an eye-witness must have related it ; but that it was designed 
to be an express impartation of scientific knowledge revealed by 
the Most High. Here the remark above adverted to, that Scrip- 
ture does not teach matters of science, comes in with all its force : 
—not, indeed, to explain how the language of Joshua may be re- 
conciled with the language of Philosophy ; but to explain why 
we are not to regard his language as a special revelation, com- 
municating the results of future discoveries.’ 


1 See supra, Lecture iv. p. 146, note 3. 

2 There is yet another class of “discrepancies” which Spinoza was, I believe, the 
first to urge against the authority of Scripture ; and the same objection has been lately 
pressed, with the same object, by Mr. F. W. Newman (“Phases of Faith,” p. 147). 
It has been even advanced by Mr. Morell, who thus states his views: “Once more 
we may refer to discrepancies in reasoning, in definition, and in other purely formal 
and logical processes. By those who have most closely analyzed the trains of thought 
which we have in the Apostolic writings, and especially those of S. Paul, it is well 
understood how great the difficulty often is to reconcile particular definitions, and 
passing arguments, with logical order and consistency. To some it might, doubtless, 
seem very irreverent to speak of errors in reasoning as occurring in the sacred writ- 
ings; but the irreverence, if there be any, really lies on the part of those who deny 
their possibility. We have already shown that to speak of Logic, as such, being in- 
spired, is a sheer absurdity. The process either of defining or of reasoning requires 
simply the employment of the formal laws of thought, the accuracy of which can be 
in no way affected by any amount of inspiration whatever.”—Philosophy of Religion, 
p. 173. The distinction between Revelation and Inspiration indicates one of the 
mistakes involved in this statement. On Mr. Morell’s principles it must be equally 
absurd to speak of “inspired history” as of “inspired logic.” It may, with equal 
truth, be said of one, as of the other, that its accuracy “can be in no way affected 
by any amount of inspiration whatever.” But the followiug profound remarks point 
out the radical fallacy of any attempt to analyze the reasoning of Scripture by the 
ordinary rules of Logic: “Inspired teaching (explain it how we may) seems com- 
paratively indifferent to (what seems to us so peculiarly important) close logical con- 
nexion, and the intellectual symmetry of doctrines. * * * The necessity of 
confuting gainsayers at times forced one of the greatesc of His [Christ’s] inspired 
servants, S. Paul, to prosecute continuous argument; yet even with him how abrupt 
are the transitions, how intricate the connexion, how much is conveyed by asswmp- 
tions such as Inspiration alone can make, without any violation of the canons of 
reasoning—FOR WITH IT ALONE ASSERTION IS ARGUMENT. * * * ‘The same may 
be said of some passages of S. John, supposed to have been similarly occasioned. 
.nspiration has ever left to human Reason the filling up of its outlines, the careful 
connexion of its mor> isolated truths. The two are as the lightning of Heaven, bril- 


ie RECAPITULATION, [LECT. vm 


I have paused upon this particular objection longer, perhaps, 
than its intrinsic weight may have appeared to demand or de- 
serve, because it has enabled me to introduce some observations 
which will facilitate the just apprehension of a topic of growing 
importance, and to which every year that passes by adds a graver 
interest : I mean the connexion, in general, between the results 
of scientific discovery, and the statements of Scripture. It isa 
fact of common notoriety, that men have not yet ceased to feel 
alarm for the truths of Religion. Let us only bear in mind the 
spirit with which any progress in the Philosophy of Nature is 
received. Take, for example, the case of Astronomy, which opens 
to our view the boundless regions of space ; or of Geology, which 
discloses to our understanding the boundless regions of time. 
The history of Galileo illustrates the difficulties with which the 
former has had to struggle. The memory of living men attests 
the opposition encountered by the latter ;’ an opposition which 
-—it is not going too far to aver—has not as yet disappeared. 
Strange, indeed, that such misconceptions should still prevail 
as to the respective provinces of Science and Religion! The 
great founder of the Inductive Philosophy has from the first 
raised his warning voice in deprecation of the error: ‘The un- 
skilfulness of certain Theologians,” observed Lord Bacon, ‘ would 
exclude the study of all Philosophy, however guarded. Some 
entertain a latent fear lest they may intrude into Divine Mys- 


liant, penetrating, far-flashing, abrupt—compared with the feebler but continuous 
illumination of some earthly beacon.”—Professor Archer Butler, On Development, p. 
245. In other words, Mr. Morell’s criticism on the Logic of Scripture assumes that 
Seripture is not inspired. But see infra, Appendix N, the truly philosophical prin- 
ciples laid down on this subject by Mr. J. S. Mill. 

1 Tt is important, however, to bear in mind that objections to Geology as ὦ science 
have not originated with the friends of Religion. Voltaire denied the existence of 
fossils, lest he should be compelled to admit the fact of the Deluge:—‘“ As the rea- 
diest way of shaking this article of faith, he endeavored to inculcate scepticism as 
to the real nature of such shells, and to recall from contempt the exploded dogma 
of the 16th century, that they were sports of nature.”—Lyell’s Principles of Geology, 
8th ed., p. 56. Or, shifting his ground to suit the apprehension of the vulgar, he 
maintained that the shells collected in the Alps were no doubt real shells, but that 
they were “Eastern species which had fallen from the hats of pilgrims coming from 
Syria."—Jbid. “It is interesting and instructive to observe,” remarks an able writer 
in the “Christian Remembrancer” for July, 1849, “ how speedily and entirely unbe- 
lievers changed their views of Geology. It was soon whispered that geological phe- 
nomena seemed to indicate that the antiquity of the globe was much greater than 
that attributed by the Mosaic account to the human race. * * * In Mr. Bry- 
done’s ‘ Tour through Sicily and Malta in 1770,’ eight years before the death of Vol- 
taire. the immense antiquity of the globe, as proved by the geological phenomena 
of Aitna, is treated of with a radiant satisfaction which is hardly exceeded when 
he descants upon the profligacy of the Sicilian monks or knights of Malta."—p. 228. 


LECT, VIII. | OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED, 37e 


teries by penetrating too deeply into the secrets of Nature. 
Qthers conceive that, by remaining ignorant of the means, the 
effects can be more easily ascribed to the agency of God. Others, 
again, apprehend that changes in Philosophy may produce re- 
sults injurious to Religion. While a fourth class seems alarmed 
lest researches into Nature’s laws shall bring to light what may 
subvert or weaken their faith. These two latter apprehensions,” 
continues this great writer, ‘appear to us to savor of a wisdom 
altogether animal :—as if, in the recesses of their breasts, men 
mistrusted the certainty of Religion ; and, therefore, feared that 
danger impends from a search after Truth.” 

With reference to this supposed variance between the conclu- 
sions of Science and the received interpretation of Scripture, it 
is entirely overlooked by those to whose minds such a result pre- 
sents a difficulty, that the constant recurrence of apparent con- 
tradictions between the observed facts of every progressive 
science, and the sense which we are in the habit of attaching 
to the statements of the Bible, seems, beforehand, almost a mat- 
ter of certainty. This has already been the case with Astron- 
omy, Geology, Ethnology :—we may expect it in the continued 
investigation of these sciences ; and, no doubt the same will oc- 
cur in other cases also. There are some—and these persons 
Bacon has described—who take alarm at every investigation in 
Natural Philosophy. To the minds of such men, the theory of 
Nebule, started by philosophers, suggests a doubt of the creation 
of the world by God ; the truth of the Mosaic narrative appears 
to waver before the facts of Geology ; the descent of man from 
one original stock seems impugned by an examination into the 
history of nations.” To all such apprehensions one only answer 
can be given, ‘No one Truth can be contradictory to any other 
Truth.” The question which we must settle, in the first in- 
stance, and on its own peculiar evidence, is—Does the Bible 


2 “Novum Organum,” lib. i. aphor. 89. 

2 “ When men had conceived the occurrences of the Sacred Narrative in a paiti- 
cular manner, they could not readily and willingly adopt a new mode of conception ; 
and all attempts to recommend to them such novelties, they resisted as attacks upon 
the sacredness of the Narrative. They had clothed their belief of the workings of 
Providence in certain images; and they clung to those images with the persuasiou 
that, without them, their belief could not subsist. * * * The most memorable 
instance of a struggle of this kind is to be found in the circumstances which at 
tended the introduction of the Heliocentric Theory of Copernicus to general accept 
anen”—Whewell, Phil. of the Induct. Sciences, vol. i. p. 685. 


4 


374 RECAPITULATION, LECT. VII. 


come from God? And if it be Divine (and therefore true), 
“then is it certain, demonstrably certain-—that no fact in the 
universe,—in heaven above, or earth beneath, or in the waters 
or the rocks under the earth,—can by possibility be really incon- 
sistent with it.” Hence, the conclusion which Theologian and 
Philosopher alike must admit is simply this :—Let each inquirer 
produce his results ; the one from God’s words in His Scriptures, 
the other fromm God’s acts in His Creation ; and should any in- 
consistency. present itself, it is either because the pages of Inspi- 
ration do not really say what the former supposes: or else be- 
cause the theory of the latter is founded upon an imperfect or 
erroneous induction. Onsuch a principle the Philosopher may be 
invited to collect his facts, and to build up his theory, undismayed 
by any alarm lest his conclusions shall contravene a single truth 
of Religion: while it becomes the duty of Divines—-a duty in- 
creasing in its obligation as Science advances,—in the first place, 
to qualify themselves to understand and appreciate such conclu- 
sions ; and, when the evidence on which they rest is weighed and 
accepted, the next duty of Theology is to compare the results 
with the preconceived opinions of religious men, and, should they 
be found not to agree, to examine how this discrepancy is to be 
set right, and to teach in what other way the face of the world 
and the words of God may be shown to be,—as when rightly 
understood, they must, of necessity be,—perfectly harmonious.’ 


1 1 here avail myself of the very forcible argument of the writer in the “‘ Christian 
Remembrancer,” loc. cit., pp. 232-234. 

* “Other apparent difficulties arise from the accounts given in the Scripture of the 
first origin of the world in which we live: for example, Light is represented as cre- 
ated before the Sun. With regard to difficulties of this kind, it appears that we may 
derive some instruction from the result to which we were led in the last chapter ;— 
namely, that in the sciences which trace the progress of natural occurrences, we can 
in no case go back to an origin, but in every instance appear to find ourselves sepa- 
rated from it by a state of things, and an order of events, of a kind altogether differ- 
ent from those which come under our experience. The thread of induction respecting 
the natural course of the world snaps in our fingers, when we try to ascertain where 
its beginning is. Since, then, Science can teach us nothing positive respecting the 
beginning of things, she can neither contradict nor confirm what is taught by Scrip- 
ture on that subject; and thus, as it is unworthy timidity in the lover of Scripture to 
fear contradiction, so is it ungrounded presumption to look for confirmation in such 
cases.” —Whewell, loc. cit. p. 687. In one of Mr. Chapman’s publications, entitled 
“The Hebrew Cosmogony,” the author, drawing all his inferences from the most  lit- 
eral construction of the English translation of the Hebrew text, observes: “Thus, 
between indolent surmises and absurd theories, the world has (with few exceptions) 
permitted itself to be blind to the fact that Moses’ narrative is entirely at variance 
with existing phenomena; and that that error is one of tue most vital importance, 
affecting the proof of his inspiration”—p. 9; and the wnier concludes with the re 


LECT. VIL. ] OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED, 375 


Nor can it for a moment be maintained that such endeavors to 
readjust our interpretation of the language of Holy Scripture 
can derogate from its supreme authority. A remark of Bishop 
Butler with reference to “‘ the scheme of Scripture,” holds equally 
true with reference to its interpretation,—if we only substitute 
the facts of Science for the events of History : ‘‘ Nor is it at all 
incredible, that a Book which has been so long in the possession 
of mankind should contain many truths as yet undiscovered. 
For all the same phenomena, and the same faculties of in- 
vestigation from which such great discoveries in natural knowl- 
edge have been made in the present and last age, were equally 
in the possession of mankind several thousand years before. 
And possibly it might be intended that events, as they come 
to pass, should open and ascertain the meaning of several 
parts of Scripture.’ It may be well, too, to note that the same 
objections which have been advanced against inquiring into the 
laws of Nature have been equally urged even against inquiries 
into the text of Scripture. When Dr. Kennicott commenced his 
labors on the text of the Old Testament, all the world was in 
commotion ; and it was apprehended that Christianity itself 
would be sorely shaken, But men’s fears were soon appeased ; 


mark: “Whether these objections affect the evidence for the inspiration of the pre- 
ceptive and prophetic portions of the Old Testament is quite another question.” Or, 
to take the less offensive statement of Mr. Morell: “Under this head we may refer 
to the acknowledged (?) discrepancies between some of the Scriptural statements and 
scientific truth. The account of the Creation, for example, as given in the Book of 
Genesis, is by no means exactly reconcilable (viewed as a scientific account) with the 
most palpable facts of Geology. Wedo not doubt but that ingenuity may smooth 
down one expression, and give a broad meaning to another, and after all may bring 
out a tolerable case of consistency; but still it is impossible to say that, as a scientific 
view of the creation of the world, the Book of Genesis would convey at all the same 
impression to the mind of any ordinary reader as do the results of geological ro- 
search.” —Philosophy of Retigivn, p.170. To this class of objections the following 
remarks suggest the true answer: “The Sacred Narrative, in some of its earliest por- 
tions, speaks of natural objects and occurrences respecting them. In the very begin- 
ning of the course of the world, we may readily believe (indeed as we have seer 
in the last chapter, our scientific researches lead us to believe) that such occurrences 
were very different from anything which now takes place ;—different to an extent 
and in a manner which we cannot estimate. Now the narrative must speak of ob- 
jects and occurrences in the words and phrases which have derived their meaning 
from their application to the existing natural state of things. When applied to an 
initial supernatural state, therefore, these words and phrases cannot help being to us 
obscure and mysterious, perhaps ambiguous and seemingly contradictory.”—Whewell, 
loc, cit., p. 684. 

Δ “ Analogy,” Part ii. ch. iii. Of. the remark of Cassiodorus: “ Nequaquam vobis 
modernos expositores interdico. Caute tamen querendos esse Catholicos; quoniam 
accessu temporum multis noviter gratia Divinitatis infunditur, que forsitan priscis 
doctoribus czlata monstratur. —De Instit. Div. Liter., c. viii. t. 11. p. 544. 


376 RECAPITULATION. [LECT. VIL 


and they were amazed at the trivial and easily explicable va- 
riations which the Hebrew manuscripts presented :—so trivial 
indeed are they, that they have almost ceased to possess any 
interest in the eyes of critics.’ 

What Religion, then, has to fear is not the most searching 
criticism of the contents of Scripture ; not any fundamental in- 
quiry into the laws of physical phenomena ; not the fullest ex- 
amination of every vestige upon the field of Nature left by the 
footsteps of Time :—her true source of alarm is the danger to 
their faith which those persons must encounter who content 
themselves with superficial information, or partial knowledge. 
Scripture has never anything to apprehend from the results of 
any branch of Science ; a semblance of investigation and half- 
learned sciolism alone can represent its great truths in a disad- 
vantageous light. They who seek in the announcements of Scrip- 
ture for positive information on matters appertaining to Natural 
Science will, indeed, ever seek in vain. For those, on the other 
hand, who, while they venture not to deliver physical doctrines as 
the teaching of Revelation,’ recognise the undoubted supremacy 


1 Dr. Moses Stuart observes: ‘In the Hebrew MSS. that have been examined, 
BO 800,000 various readings actually occur as to the Hebrew consonants. How 
man, to the vowel-points and accents, no man knows. But at the same time it is 
equally “ι9, that all these taken together do not change or materially affect any im- 
portant point of doctrine, precept, or even history. A great proportion, indeed the 
mass, of variations in Hebrew MSS. when minutely scanned, amount to nothing 
more than the difference in spelling a multitude of English words [e. g. dp or d4p ; 
as honour or honor]. * * * “Indeed one may travel through the immense desert - 
(so I can hardly help naming it) of Kennicott and De Rossi, and (if I may venture to 
speak in homely phrase) not find game enough to be worth the hunting. So com- 
pletely is this chase given up by recent critics on the Hebrew Scriptures, that a refer- 
ence to either of these famous collators of MSS. who once created a great sensation 
among philologers is rarely to be found.”—On the Old Test. Canon, p. 169. 

“When the very erudite and truly pious Professor Bengel of Tiibingen published 
his New Testament, with all the various readings which he had been able to discover, 
many minds were filled with anxiety, thinking that an entirely New Testament would 
be the result in the end, if all the various readings were hunted up. They thought it 
would be better to leave things as they were. But mark:—although 40,000 various 
readings were discovered in the ancient MSS., the New Testament was hardly at all 
altered thereby.”—Olshausen, The Genwineness of the N. T. Writings (Clarke’s For. 
Theol. Lib. p. vii). 

2 “By delivering physical doctrines as the teaching of Revelation, Religion may 
lose much, but cannot gain anything. This maxim of practical wisdom has often 
been urged by Christian writers. Thus S. Augustine says (lib. 1. “De Genesi,” 
c. xviii.): ‘In obscure matters and things far removed from our senses, if we read 
anything, even in the Divine Scripture, which nay produce diverse opinions without 
damaging the faith which we cherish, let us not rush headlong by positive assertion 
to either the one opinion or the other; lest when a more thorough discussion us 
shown the opinion we had adopted to be false, our faith may fall with it: and we 
should be found conten ling, not for the doctrine of the Sacred Scriptures, but for our 


LECT. VIII. | OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 3TT 


of that Revelation in its own province ;—for those who thus 
take up the “ Oracles of God” with integrity and honesty (and, 
again to use tne words of Bishop Butler, “‘ Religion presupposes 
this as much, and in the same sense, as speaking to a man pre- 
supposes he understands the language in which you speak”)— 
for all such inquirers the Bible will ever possess the peculiarity 
of meeting every want, and appeasing every difficulty. In its 
pages every longing of our nature, the most superficial and the 
most profound, will find satisfaction, Here provision has been 
made alike for the tender susceptibility of the child, and the ma- 
ture intellect of manhood: and whatever shadow our imperfect 
knowledge may allow, for the present, to rest upon certain of its 
statements, the Mourner will still find solace in the songs of 
Sion, and Philosophy still drink wisdom from the parables of 
Galilee. It is true, as I have said, that all difficulties may not 
have been removed which the enemies of Christianity have 
started : nevertheless, the marvellous success with which most 
of them have already been met must convince aay fair mind that 
such as still remain are not insurmountable ; and that here, if 
anywhere, it befits our weakness “to be thankful and to wait.’ 
The supercilious philosophy which refuses to Religion this jus- 
tice,—which scorns “‘ to conciliate the finger and the tongue of 
God, His works and His word,”’—-must answer, as best it may, 
the demand of the Most High : ‘‘ Where wast thou when I laia 
the foundations of the earth ? Declare if thou hast under- 
standing.”* The Christian, on the other hand, fearlessly accepts 
the source of Divine knowledge which has been vouchsafed to 
him. In the pages of Scripture he recognises the record of im- 
perishable Truth ; and as he shrinks from no inquiry, so he chal- 


own; endeavoring to make our doctrine to be that of the Scriptures, instead of 
taking the doctrine of the Scriptures to be ours.’ ”"—Whewell, loc. cit. p. 693. 

* Mr. Westcott, loc. cit. p. 133, quotes the words of Origen: ἀσφαλὲς οὖν τὸ 
περιμένειν τὴν ἑρμηνείαν τοῦ σαφηνιστοῦ A0yov.—Philocalia, 

3. “We may add, as a further reason for mutual forbearance in such cases, that the 
true interests of both parties are the same. The man of Science is concerned, no less 
than any other person, in the truth and import of the Divine dispensation; the reli- 
gious man, no less than the man of Science, is, by the nature of his intellect, inea- 
pable of believing two contradictory declarations. Hence they have both alike a need 
for understanding the Scripture in some way in which it shall be consistent with their 
understanding of Nature. It is for their common advantage to conciliate, as Kepler 
says, the finger and the tongue of God, His works and His word.”—-Whewell, loc. cas. 
p. 695. 

Job, xxxviii. 4 


378 RECAPITULATION, [LECT, VIIL 


lenges all examination. His sole demand is, justice in the con- 
duct of this inquiry, and due qualifications un the part of those 
who enter on this examination. He knows that every assault 
which has marked the course of nineteen hundred years has but 
served to strengthen the bulwarks of his belief ; and that above 
the chaos of human systems, and the wreck of philosophical 
speculation, the light of Inspiration shines more brightly than 
ever. Karthly dynasties have passed away, while the Kingdom 
of Christ has but enlarged its borders. Empires have crumbled 
into ruins, but the Religion of the Cross shows no symptoms of 
decrepitude. Under the banner of that Cross will yet be sig- 
nalized the further triumphs of the Church of God: and, un- 
failing as that Church Herself, are those Divine Institutes whica 
are entrusted to Her charge, and which contain Her Commis- 
sion, ‘‘ Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shail 
not pass away,”—is the assurance of the Church’s Head. Ad 
asthough philosophers object, or critics cavil, or unbelievers scorn, 
the Christian calmly abides the issue, with a confidence “ strong 
as Faith, and patient as Time.” 





ACP POE NOD Tk 


APPENDIX 





APPENDIX A. 
FICHTE. 
(Lzcrure L—Pace 19.) 


“Tr is needless,” observes a rationalistic writer, “ to prove the necessity 
of a Revelation. Ε wr, if Reasun allow that a Revelatiov 1s possible, The- 
ology has merety to adduce the historical proof that ‘wd has revealed 
Himself.”’ To prove the possibility of such a communication from the 
Divine Being is the problem which Fichte undertakes to solve; and, in 
entering upon his “ Attempt at a Criticism of all Revelation,” he sets out 
from an analysis of the actwal state and constitution of man—his faculties 
and his susceptibilities. 

The result of this analysis differs but little, if at all, from the following 
description given by Bishop Butler :—“ Together with the general princi- 
ple of moral understanding we have, in our inward frame, various affec- 
tions towards particular external objects. These affections are naturally, 
and of right, subject to the government of the moral principle, as to the 
occasions upon which they may be gratified ; as to the times, degrees, and 
manner, in which the objects of them may be pursued : but then the prin- 
ciple of virtue can neither excite them, nor prevent their being excited. On 
the contrary, they are naturally felt when the objects of them are present 
to the mind, not only before all consideration whether they can be ob- 
tained by lawful means, but after it is found they cannot.”—Anailogy, 
Part 1. ch. v. 

Fichte opens his “ Criticism” by laying down a “ Theory of the Will as 
preparation, in general, for a deduction of Religion” (§ 2). “The deter- 
mining one’s self, with the consciousness of our own activity, to produce a 
conception is called will (Wollen) : the power to determine one’s self, with 
this consciousness of the self activity, is called the power of desire (Begeh- 
rungs-Vermégen). The will is distinguished from the power of desire, as 
the actwal from the possible.” “There must be a mediwm which is capable 
of being determined, on the one hand, by the conception to which the sub- 
ject is but passively related; and, on the other, by spontaneity, the con- 
sciousness of which is the exclusive character of all will. This medium we 
name propension (den Trieb).” “That which existing in the subject-mat- 


1 Bretschneider, “ Handbuch der Dogmatik,” B. is. 210. 


382 APPENDIX A. 


ter of the sensation determines the propension we nameugreeable ; and the 
propension, so far as it is thereby determined, we name the sensuous (sinn 
lichen) propension” (s. 5). 

The higher power of desire—the object of which is the idea of what is 
absolutely right—is to be distinguished from the lower. To the former no 
object is given,—it gives to itself its object: to the Jatter its object must be 
given. The former is absolutely independent; the datter is, in many re- 
spects, merely passive. That this higher power of desire, which is merely 
a power, should produce a willing as an actual process of the mind, some- 
thing further is required ; and that the determination of the will in finite 
creatures should be possible, a certain mediwm must be pointed out. This 
is called the feeling of respect (das Gefuhl der Achtung), which is, as it 
were, the point in which the rational and sensuous natures of finite beings 
inwardly combine. It is therefore a perfectly just maxim of morality, “ Re- 
spect thyself :” and hence we see why minds which are not ignoble prize 
the approval of their own hearts far higher than the plaudits of a universe. 
This self-respect, as an active propension determining the will is called 
moral interest: which must necessarily be accompanied by a feeling of 
pleasure. Respeet (Achtung) is the earliest feeling which, displaying itself 
in every man, is not to be explained by his whole sensuous nature, and im- 
mediately points to his connexion with a higher world. The sensuous pro- 
pension on the one hand, and the purely moral propension, on the other, 
hold the scales in the human will; the pleasure arising from the submis- 
sion of the former to the Law imposed by the latter is a spark of the Deity 
within us, and a pledge that we are of His race (s. 25). 

The Moral Law demands supremacy within us. According to its pro- 
hibition, or non-prohibition, a propension is allowable or the reverse. “The 
Moral Law, if it shall not contradict itself, and cease to be a Law, must 
maintain the rights imparted by itself :—it must, consequently exercise not 
on'v command, but absolute rule over Nature. This cannot take place in 
beiugs who are themselves passively affected by Nature,—but in a Being 
ouly Who, in all respects independently, determines Nature: in Whose 
Person are united moral necessity, and absolute physical freedom. This 
Being we name God” (s.41). By virtue of the demands of the Moral 
Law, God must produce perfect congruence between morality and the hap- 
piness of finite rational beings. “The determinations in the idea of God 
(which Reason, practically determined by the injunctions of morality, has 
laid down) are—(1.) Those presented by His very idea: viz. that He is 
determined wholly and solely by the Moral Law (i. e. the demand of tha 
practical Reason on Him is not a command, but a Law ;—it is with respect 
to Him not imperative, but constitutive): and—(2.) Those which belong 
to Him, so far as relates to the possibility of finite moral beings; on ac- 
count of which possibility we were just now obliged to assume His exist- 
ence. The former represent God as the most perfect Holiness :—as the 
Alone-Happy, because He is the Alone-Holy. Hence He represents the 
Highest Good—the attained end of practical Reason—the possibility of 
which was Reason’s postulate. The Jatter represent Him as the Supreme 
Ruler of the world by moral laws; the Judge of all rational spirits. The 
former regard Him in, and for, Himself, according to His Being; and He 
thereby appears the most perfect observer of the Moral Law: the latter, 


APPENDIX A. 383 


according to the operations of this Being upon other moral natures, and by 
virtue of which He is the highest executor of the requirements of tne Moral 
Law ; and therefore a Legislator. Hence we get a Theology (which we 
must have iu order not to place in contradiction our theoretical convictions 
and the practical determinations of our will) ; but not as yet a Religion, 
which itself, in turn, might, as Cause, exert an influence upon this determ- 
ination of the will. Theology is mere Science: Religion, as its very name 
imports (religzo), is that which binds us; and this, too, more powerfully 
than we were bound without it” (s. 46). Theology becomes Religion, 
when the propositions assumed to determine our will by means of the Law 
of Reason operate practically upon us, in consequence of the further mo- 
tive that such is God’s command. 

The Moral Law zm us contains the law of God to us; and is, according 
to its matter, His Law. We have still to inquire whether it is also His 
Law, according to its form : i. e. whether it has been promulged by Him, 
and as His. In other words :—‘“ Has God really promulged His Law to 
us? Can we point out a fact which proves itself to be such a promulga- 
tion?” (8. 71). The problem to be solved, therefore, is— Has God an- 
nounced Himself to us as a Moral Legislator? and, how has He done 80 2” 
This is conceivable in cwo ways. God has promulged His Law either in 
us, as moral beings, in our rational nature; or in a way exterior to that 
nature. There are, therefore, two principles of Religion :—the principle 
of the supernatural within us; and the principle of the supernatural with 
out us. A Religion based upon the former is called Natural Religion: if 
based upon the latter it is called Revealed Religion. “ According to the 
second principle, the announcement of the Legislator without us either 
sends us back to our rational nature, and the entire Revelation, expressed 
in words, merely says: ‘God is the Legislator; the Law written in your 
hearts is His ;—or, it prescribes to us, in a special manner, God’s Law 
once more, in the same way in which it makes Him known as Legislator. 
In the case of a Revelation given in conereto, there is no reason why both 
may not take place” (5. 79). (Cf. Butler’s “ Analogy,” Part ii. ch. i.) 

“ Revelation, according to its form, is a kind of making known (eine Art 
von Bekanntmachung) ; and every thing which holds good of this its spe- 
cies holds good also of it. Of all ‘‘making known” there are two internal 
conditions: viz. (1), the something which is made known, the subject mat- 
ter (der Stof’); and (2) the manner in which it is made known, the form 
οὐ the “ making known.” The external conditions are also twofold :—a 
person who makes known, and one to whom it is made known. That 
which is made known is made known only because I knew it not before. 
Knowledge which is ὦ priori possible is developed, or pointed out, not 
made known: it is only knowledge which is possible ὦ posteriori that is 
made known.” Hence it follows that we must exclude from the idea of 
Revelation all possible instruction and knowledge derived fro». ἃ con.em- 
plation of the world of sense. “ Revelation is therefore a perception which 
is wrought i, us by God, in conformity with the idea of some instruction 
to be given us sherepy, as its end or object.” As to the logical poss*bility 
of this notion there can be no doubt.- Its physical possibility is founded 
upon the pos’ tlate of the Moral Law that a free intelligent being can ‘\y, a 
cause in the worla » sense, in confornity with an idea of the end to be 


384 APPENDIX A. 


effected. But how shall we know that God has thus wrought a certain 
perception in us ? 

Although we cannot penetrate the notion of a Revelation on the side of 
its form ; the idea of Religion enables us to attain to it on the side of its 
matter (s. 96). 

If the existence of finite moral beings—i. e. beings who besides the 
Moral Law are likewise subject to laws of Nature—be assumed, we may 
anticipate that the operations of these two causalities (whose laws are τὸ- 
ciprocally quite independent of each other) will fall into collision in de- 
termining the will of such beings. “If such beings shall not in this case 
become quite incapable of morality, their sensuous “(sinnliche) nature must 
be determined by impulses of sense to allow itself to be determined by the 
Moral Law.” The sole purely moral impulse is the inward holiness of 
Right (des Rechts). This holiness, by virtue of a postulate of the pure 
practical Reason, exists in God in conereto : He i is, therefore, the Legislator 
of all rational beings; and must, therefore, announce Himself to them, and 
His will as their law, in the world of sense. Now the world of sense does 
not contain an announcement of this law-giving holiness. God must, there- 
fore, announce Himself to those beings in the world of sense as Legislator, 
by means of a special phenomenon expressly designed for this purpose and 
for them. And since God is determined by the Moral Law to forward by 
all moral means the highest possible morality in all rational beings, we 

may expect, if such beings exist, that He will avail Himself of those means, 
if they be physically possible. This deduced idea is really the idea of 
Revelation :—1. e. the idea of a phenomenon produced in the world of 
sense by the causality of God, whereby He announces Himself as moral 
Legislator” (s. 106). 

᾿ς “Tn deducing the notion of Revelation from the practical principles of 
Reason, the fact was assumed ἃ priori that there can be moral beings in 
whom the Moral Law loses its casuality for ever, or only in certain cases. 
The Moral Law claims a casuality over the higher power of desire, in order 
to determine the will; and over the lower, in order to produce the perfect 
freedom of the moral subject from the constraint of the impulse of Nature. 
If the former kind of causality be removed, the will to recognise and obey 
the Law is wanting: if the latter only be hindered, man, however good 
his will may be, is too weak actually to practise the good that he wills. 
The empirical possibility of this hypothesis, if proved, answers the ques- 
tion, Why was a Revelation needed ? and why could not man make shift 
maili Natural Religion alone ?” (s. 112). The highest moral perfection of 
man (impossible to be determined ἃ priori as existing in any individual 
man, and in the present state of humanity émprobable) is that pure religion 
of Reason which waits for no demand of God to obey Him ; but only for 
permission to look up to Him with willing obedience. The second degree 
of moral perfection (and which is the foundation of Natural Religion), is 
that in which Reason seeks for proof of the notion of God, as moral Legis- 
lator; and finds it in the idea of Him as Creator of the world. The lowest 
fall of rational beings with respect to morality, is when not even the well 
exists to recognise and obey a moral law. 

In each of these cases Religion j is required. In the first, to satisfy the 
emotion of reverence and gratitude towards the Supreme Being; in the 


APPENDIX A. 385 


second, to add a new weight to the authority of the Moral Law ; in the 
third, to produce the will to acknowleaye that Law. This Religion can 
attain to humanity thus constituted, only by the way in which everything 
reaches it which it conceives, or by which it allows itself to be determined : 
—viz., by the senses. “ Humanity may fall so deeply into moral degrada- 
tion, that it is not to be brougnt back to morality by any other means 
than by Religion; and to Religion by any other means than by the senses. 
A religion which shall take effect upon such men can no otherwise be 
founded than immediately upon Divine authority. Since God cannot will 
that any moral being should forge (erdichte) such an authority, He Him- 
self, it must be, who confers it upon such a religion” (p. 1384). But upon 
what can God found this authority? Clearly not upon a Sublimity for 
which men have no sense and no reverence ; nor yet upon His Holiness, 
which were to presuppose a moral feeling already existing in them, which 
Religion has yet to develop; but upon that which they are capable of 
marvelling at on natural grounds—His greatness, and power, as Lord of 
Nature, and as their Lord. Hence results merely attention on man’s part 
to the motives to obedience which are at a later period to be laid before 
him. The demand, therefore, of God, in a possible Revelation, that we 
should hearken to Him is founded upon His Omnipotence: His demand 
that we should obey Him can only be founded upon His Holiness; but 
the notion of Holiness, as well as of reverence for it, must have been 
already developed by means of Revelation. We have a sublime expres- 
sion which explains this: “ Be ye holy, for I am Holy, saith the Lord” 
~ (p. 136). 
nae before the moral feelings are excited, how are men to judge if it can 
be God that speaks ἢ" 

The counterpoise to those determinations that resist duty and have 
strength sufficient to suppress altogether the voice of Reason, is the power 
of imagination (die Einbildungs-kraft) ; which, on the one hand, apper- 
tains to sense (and is thus capable of a determination to work in opposition 
to the sensuous nature of man); on the other, is determinable by freedom, 
and has spontaneity. By means of it, therefore, must the sole possible 
motive of morality—viz., the conception of the legislation of the Holy One 
—be brought before the soul. In Natural Religion this conception is 
founded on principles of Reason; but if this Reason (as we assume) is 
completely suppressed, then its results appear dark, uncertain, insecure. 
The principles therefore of this conception also should be capable of rep- 
resentation by the power of imagination. Now principles of this class 
would be facts in the world of sense-—or a Revelation. In such moments 
man must be able to say to himself: “It is God, for He has spoken, and 
acted: He wills that I should not act so now, for He has expressly forbid- 
den it, in such words, and under such circumstances,” ὅθ. If conceptions 
of this nature shall make an impression upon him, he must be able to as- 
sume as perfectly true, and just, the facts which lie at their foundation ; 
they must, therefore, not be anything feigned by his own power of imagin- 
ation, but be given to it. 

Is it, in general, possible—is it, in general, conceivable—that anything 
without Nature, should have a causality iz Nature? That this must be, 
in general, possible, is the first postulate which the practical Reason makes 

25 


386 APPENDIX a, 
4 

ἃ priori, when it determines the supernatural element within us (our higher 
power of desire) to be a cause without itself in the world of sense whether 
within us or without us. The entire philosophy of Nature knows nothing 
of a causality by means of freedom: so long, therefore, as we speak of the 
mere determining by the higher power of desire, it is needless to pay any 
regard to the existence of Nature. These two causalities, viz., of Nature, 
and of the Moral Law, are infinitely different as well in the kind of their 
causality, as their objects. The Law of Nature ordains with absolute ne- 
cessity ; the Moral Law commands freedom: the former rules Nature ; the 
latter the world of spirits. Their operations in the world of sense, how- 
aver, come in contact, and may even not be contradictory. Their harmony 
may be conceived possible by their mutual dependence on a higher legisla- 
tion, which lies at the foundation of both; which is, however, for us quite 
inaccessible. Were we able, indeed, to place such a principle at the basis 
of our view of the Universe, the same effect which appears to us when re- 
ferred to the world of sense according to the Moral Law as free, and in 
Nature as contingent, would be recognised as altogether necessary. But 
since we cannot do so, it follows plainly that so soon as we pay regard to 
a causality by means of freedom, we must not assume all phenomena in 
the world of sense as necessary, according to mere laws of Nature, but 
many merely as contingent: and that we may not, therefore, explain them 
all from the laws of Nature, but many merely according to such laws :— 
by which latter phrase is meant that we are to assume the causality of the 
matter of the operation to be without Nature, and the causality of its form _ 
to be within Nature. 

In God, Who determines Nature according to the Moral Law, the two 
legislations spoken of unite. We are compelled by our Reason to derive 
the whole system of phenomena—the entire world of sense—from a cau- 
sality by means of freedom, according to laws of Reason; and that, too, 
from the causality of God. The whole world is for us this supernatural 
operation ; and it is conceivable (1) that God, from the first, has interwoven 
in the plan of the Universe the first natural cause of a phenomenon, which 
was in conformity with one of His moral designs. (The objection that 
this is to do in a roundabout way (durch einen Umweg) what could be 
done directly, is based upon a gross anthropomorphosis, as if God stood 
under the conditions of time). In this case the phenomenon might be 
perfectly explicable from the laws of Nature, up to the supernatural origin 
of all Nature itself, were we able to take a connected survey of it ;—and 
yet it must be also regarded as effected by the causality of a Divine idea 
of the moral end to be attained thereby. Or, again, (2) we might assume 
that God has actually interrupted the series of causes and effects already 
commenced and proceeding according to natural laws; and that by the im- 
mediate causality of His moral idea He has brought to pass an effect dif: 
ferent from what would have followed by means of the mere causality of 
the course of Nature according to its laws: still we have not determined 
at what link of the chain He should interfere ;—whether at that immedia- 
ely preceding the designed effect, or whether He might not do so at a link, 
perhaps, very far removed from it in time, and intermediate effects. In 
this latter case (if we are thoroughly acquainted with the laws of Nature) 
we shall at length ascertain, by a progress in infinitum, that a certain effect 





9 


APPENDIX A, 387 


is to be explained no! sro but according to natural laws. Suppose, how- 
ever, we were unable, or unwilling, to trace the series of natural causes 
beyond a certain point, it might be very possible that the effect, no longer 
to be explained naturally, did not fall within these limits placed by us— 
still we should not yet be justified in concluding that the phenomenon in 
question could not have been effected by a supernatural causality. In the 
first case only would we at once infer from the phenomenon a causality not 
to be explained from natural laws, and which rendered it theoretically pos- 
sible to assume for it a supernatural cause. Since all that is required is to 
afford grounds, not of conviction, but of attention to the Moral Law, this 
theoretical possibility is quite sufficient; and for this nothing more is re 
quired than that we see no natural causes of this phenomenon. Suppose, 
however, it could be shown by means of an exalted insight into the laws of 
nature, that certain phenomena, on which this Revelation is founded, and 
which had been regarded as supernatural, were perfectly explicable from 
the laws of nature, no conclusion can be drawn from this against the pos- 
sible Divine character of such a Revelation; inasmuch as an operation— 
especially if it be ascribed to the original Source of all laws of Nature— 
may be wrought in a perfectly natural manner, and yet, at the same time, 
supernaturally ; i. 6. by the causality of His freedom, in conformity with 
the idea of a moral design. Hence, therefore, little though it can be pe» 
mitted the dogmatic defender of the notion of Revelation to infer a super 
natural causality from the inexplicability of a certain phenomenon by 
natural laws, and thence directly inferring the causality of God: just as 
little is it allowable for the dogmatic opponent of this notion to infer from 
the explicability of these same phenomena by natural laws, that they 
are possible neither by means of supernatural causality in general, nor, 
in particular, by means of the causality of God” (5. 157). “ By this 
criticism,” concludes Fichte, “the possibility of a Revelation in itself, 
and the possibility of a belief in a given definite Revelation in par- 
ticular, is rendered perfectly certain ; all objections against it are set at 
rest for ever; and all controversy on the subject eternally removed.”— 
8. 233. 
ao briefly stated, is Fichte’s “ Criticism of all Revelation ;” and it 
requires but little attention to perceive how far it asswmes some of the 
most profound of those truths which, as experience has taught, Revelation 
alone has been able to convey to man:—the perfect holiness of God, the 
depravation of human nature, the supremacy of the Moral Law (Rom. ii. 
14,15). Insuch inquiries, as Twesten* has remarked, the error has gener- 
ally prevailed “of wishing to explain and found Revelation in a purely 
speculative manner, and from a merely philosophical point of view, with- 
out any regard to the system to which it belongs. And yet it is impos- 
sible for the man who proceeds from a view so opposed to the Christian 
(as, e.g. Fichte, the author of the ‘ Versuch einer Kritik aller Offenbarung’) 
to arrive at the Christian idea of Revelation. If, however, he find it on 
his path, perhaps only through an inconsequence, yet it has for him a dif= ~ 
ferent meaning.” A single example will show the nature of such “ incon- 
sequences” in this attempt of Fichte. Having inferred from his views 
respecting the mutual relation of “the sensuous propension” and “ the 


1 “Vorlesungen iiber die Dogmatik,” B. i. 340. 


888 APPENDIX A, 


Moral Law,” that “he who has not sacrificed his life at the demand of 
the Law is unworthy of life; and must lose it, if the Moral Law is to 
have force for the world of phenomena,”—he adds in a note, “ What a 
curious coincidence !—‘ He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that 
loseth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal’ [S. John, xii. 25,] 
said Jesus; a sentiment which has precisely the same import as the 
above”’.—(s. 36.) 

The manner in which Kant has availed himself of the actwal Divine 
Revelation is far less disguised. In the Preface to the second edition of 
his treatise—“ Die Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft,” 
he states that his design is, assuming Revelation as an historical system, to 
see if it does not lead back to a pure religion of Reason. “ If this attempt 
succeeds, then can we say that there is to be found not merely a compati- 
bility between Reason and Scripture, but also unity; so that whoever 
(under the guidance of the moral idea) follows the one shall not fail to 
meet with the other.”—(s. xxiii.) 

Referring to that view which allows Revelation to be no more than “a 
public and actual introduction, and exciting cause of rational religion con- 
fined to the world,” Nitzsch observes: “ With regard to this element of 
the idea of Revelation—which we call historical,—Lessing and Kant, who 
are opposed to naturalism, as well as supernaturalism, deserve more credit 
than has yet been acknowledged. * * * Kant, who at all times 
seizes on the practical point of view, requires, in order to maintain a good 
fight against the evil principle, an ethical commonwealth. Now he deems 
it a weakness that this commonwealth cannot be realized by pure religious 
faith alone; but, notwithstanding, he esteems it a proportional gain, that 
there should exist a reuniting Church Faith. It is a direct consequence 
of his hypothesis, that in the sense in which contemporary theologians 
spoke of Revelation, he could neither discern its necessity nor its reality. 
Proceeding, however, from the undisputed fact, that pure morality never 
possessed a firmer basis than the monotheism of the Biblical Church Faith, 
he insisted on its records and its use of the idea of Revelation being so 
treated as that the combined effect of the mysteries, which otherwise were 
passive and indifferent or even injurious, might be accommodated to 
ethico-theistical decisions. His doctrine was, that we should avail our- 


1 In the “Studien ἃ. Kritiken” for 1832 (s. 378 ff.), Ullmann has given an essay, 
entitled, “Parallels from the writings of Porphyry to passages from the New Testa- 
ment, as proof of the remarkable influence of Christianity upon one of its opponents.” 
Porphyry was born A.D. 233, and according to Socrates (“‘ Hist. Kecl.” iii. 23) had been 
originally a Christian. Although one of the most bitter foes of Christianity, he could 
not divest himself of its influence, or refrain from accepting the truths for which human 
Reason, however unconsciously, is indebted to it. 

Ullmann, in proceeding to cite his parallels which he takes from the epistle of 
Porphyry to his wife Marcella, first published by Cardinal Mai (Milan, 1816), ob- 
serves: “ Even that truth which is opposed exerts a quiet and involuntary influence 
upon its opponents. While Porphyry resisted the light, its beams unceasingly forced 
themselves upon his vision.” KE. g. 8. Paul writes: ‘Know ye not that ye are the’ 
temple of God.”—1 Cor. iii. 16; a saying which Porphyry imitates in the words: Σοὶ 
δὲ, ὥσπερ εἴρηται, νεὼς μὲν ἔστω τοῦ Θεοῦ ὁ ἐν σοὶ voic.—Ad Marcellam, c. xix. Again 
we read: “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God.”—S. James, 
i. 13; with which cfi—rdv δὲ κακῶν αἴτιοι ἡμεῖς ἐσμὲν of ἑλόμενοι" Θεὸς δὲ dvairioc.— 


Thid. ο. xii. 


APPENDIX B, 889 


selves of the Son of God, and His atoning death, &c., as historical expres- 
sions, as active types and pledges of practical and rational truths; and 
thus he sketched out a philosophy of Christianity, which comprehended 
the nature of the subject matter as truly as it ever possibly could do from 
that point of view.” 

The value of the speculations to which allusions have now been made is 
in one point of view, by no means inconsiderable. It may safely be main- 
tained, to borrow a profound remark, that “ even in the assertion that the 
most important truths of Religion belong not to Revelation but to Reason, 
the Christian perceives an indirect proof of the reality of the former idea. 
Such an assertion testifies of the power which Revelation has exercised 
over the world ; since it has effected that what was formerly hidden from 
even the wisest of our race appears now as the common possession of all 
rational men.”” Or, as Mr. Davison has forcibly expressed the same idea, 
—“the fact is not to be denied; the Religion of Nature has had the op- 
portunity of rekindling her faded taper by the Gospel light, whether fur- 
tively or unconsciously taken. Let her not dissemble the obligation and 
the conveyance, and make a boast of the splendor, as though it were 
originally her own, or had always, in her hands, been sufficient for the 
illumination of the world.’”* 


APPENDIX B. 
SCRIPTURE AN ORGANIZED WHOLE, 
(Lecture I—Pagee 30.) 


To enter, at any length, upon the mutual relation of the different portions 
of Scripture is of course impossible here: such a subject would occupy 
volumes. A few instances, however, may be stated :— 

I. The Book of Job’. Before Christ had brought “life and immortality to 
light,” to those only who had drunk deeply of the sources of Revelation, and 
had formed the true idea of the Deity (which of itself implies future union 
with Him “in Whom we live, and move, and have our being,”)—to such 
persons only was a future state an object of Faith. To the mass of man- 
kind this world was their abiding Sines and therefore, with those on 
whom Religion exerted its sway,it was a main object to exhibit virtue ever 
triumphant, and vice undergoing the merited penalties :—in fact to deny, 
as an article of their belief, the disorders which the government of the 
world presents to view. How profoundly this principle was implanted in 
the Jewish mind we learn from the Gospels themselves. “ Hath this man 
sinned, or his parents, that he was born blind?” asked the Jew in the days 
of Christ: and such, too, was the opinion, which He refutes, as to the guilt 
of those upon whom the Tower of Siloam fell, and of those Galileans 


? “System der christl. Lehre,” 8 25 (Montgomery’s transl., p. 69). 

3 Twesten, loc. cit. 5. 342. 

3 “ Discourses on Prophecy,” Introd. p. 7. 

4 I have compressed under this head some suggestions of a very able articie in 
the “Christian Remembrancer” for January, 1849, entitled “The Book of Job.” 


890 APPENDIX B. 


whom Pilate had slain when in the act of worship. This sentiment—the 
natural result of man’s innate sense of justice—appears to be the ground 
of the reasoning of Job’s friends. Anxious to maintain that this world is 
a scene of satisiactory Divine justice, they argue that, pre-eminently devout, 
holy, and charitable though Job to all appearance had been, some secret 
iniquity, some weighty sin close locked in his bosom, must have been 
cherished amidst all the goodness of his outward life. “Doth God per- 
vert judgment?” reasoned Bildad the Shuhite, “or doth the Almighty 
pervert justice? If thou wert pure and upright, surely now He would 
awake for thee, and make the habitation of thy righteousness prosperous.” 
—vill. 3-6. Against the principles and conclusion alike of such reasoning 
Job utters his protest. He maintains that this visible system of things is 
irregular and unjust. He insists upon facts, and demands their recogni- 
tion, whatever difficulties may ensue. He therefore steadily asserts his 
own righteousness, from which fact, combined with that of his affliction, he 
draws a conclusion the very opposite to the favorite one which his 
“friends” maintained. 

Such is the process by which the Book of Job opens at length upon 
that great question which has grieved, and perplexed, and embittered men 
from the beginning of the world. The entire tone of the popular liter- 
ature of every age. re-echoes the same sentiment ; and in the same words 
have Poet and Philosopher alike sighed over the grand problem of hu- 
manity—év δὲ ἰῇ τιμῇ ἡμὲν κακὸς, ἠδὲ καὶ ἐσθλός. 

We might have expected from the mere fact of its being a Bouk in- 
tended for the consolation and instruction of the human race, that the 
Bible should touch upon this feeling; and this would of itself account for 
an ample recognition in its pages of the difficulty which impelled the 
Psalmist to exclaim, “ My feet were almost gone ; my steps had well nigh 
slipped, for I was envious at the foolish when I saw the prosperity of the 
wicked.” But a further end is to be pointed out, which the Book of Job 
accomplishes in the Divine Scheme. 

The Jew expected a temporal deliverer ; and “ his hopes and aspirations 
in behalf of his nation and race combined with his previous prejudice in 
favor of present rewards in committing him to the confident expectation 
of a visibly prosperous and glorious Messiah. It is evident that to resist 
such a traditional notion of a Messiah some book would be serviceable 
which would specially resist that view of this world upon which such a 
notion was founded. If the Jew was to accept a Messiah who was to lead 
a life of sorrow and abasement, and to be crucified between thieves, it was 
necessary that he should be somewhere or other distinctly taught that virtue 
was not always rewarded here, and that therefore no argument could be 
drawn from affliction and ignominy against the person who suffered it. 
The Book of Job does this. It spoke things φωνᾶντα συνετοῖσιν, in de- 
scribing the afflictions of one, whom when the ear heard, it ‘ blessed him, 
and when the eye saw, it gave witness unto him; who delivered the poor 
that cried, the fatherless and him that had none to help him’ And thus 
it stood in a particular relation to the prophetic books of Scripture—a 
kind of interpretative one ; supplying a caution where they raised hopes, 
suggesting suspicions of apparent meaning and conjectures as to a deeper 
one, and drawing men from a too material to a more refined faith. Ac- 


APPENDIX B, 391 


cordingly, all the Fathers agree in declaring that Job prefigured Christ 

that as David typified the Conqueror, he typified the Victim; and that, 

put before us in the one special character of an undeserving sufferer, he 

keane the great undeserving Sufferer of all, the Sufferer upon the 
ross.” 

These principles have been well summed up by the latest writer on the 
subject :—“‘ The Book of Job has for its strictly elaborated theme, a prob- 
lem which, as the ample discussion of it proves, impressed most pro- 
foundly the religious life of men under the Theocracy : the question, namely, 
how the sufferings of the righteous are related to the Divine justice; or 
‘the Mystery of the Cross.’ ”” 

Il, The Book of Esther. Difficulties have been raised with respect to 
the jitness of this Book to form an element of the Canon of Scripture ; 
but as to the fact of its recognition as Canonical no doubt can be enter- 
tained: from the first it has ever stood in the highest estimation among 
the Jews.” As to its relation to other parts of the Divine Scheme, it may 
be observed that from this Book only can we answer the question, Did 
God confine to the one or two Tribes that returned to Jerusalem the many 
promises which He had given to the people of Israel in general, that when 
they turned to Him again, they should find Him in the hour of their need ? 


1 See loc. cit. p. 208. I do not, of course, mean to imply that this is the only ob- 
ject designed by the Holy Spirit in the composition of the Book of Job. See, for 
example, the very interesting (and to the present view by no means inappropriate) 
remarks of Mr. De Burgh, in his lately published ‘‘ Donnellan Lectures,” on the title 
‘‘ Redeemer” (5x3, Job, xix. 25), “here first given to the Saviour * * * but ap- 
plicable to redemption only in a special sense, and literally denoting an ‘ Avenger’ ” 
(cf. Num. xxv.; Josh. xx.) * * * ‘When redemption by sacrifice or atonement 
is spoken of, a different term is invariably employed (N75): as in Ex. xiii. 13.” 
* * * “ Ε1 know that my AVENGER liveth, and that He shall stand at the latter 
day upon the earth,’ Who in that day, as ‘the righteous Judge’ should vindicate him 
[Job] from the unjust judgment of his persecutors; and also avenge him of that which 
1s the great power of the spiritual adversary—Death, with its forerunner, Disease, . 
and its follower, the Grave” (pp. 64-66). Nor, again, do I mean to imply that, 
although Scripture, at the close of the Book, in passing judgment upon the whole 
discussion between Job and his friends, definitely declares that he ‘‘had spoken the 
thing that was right,” whereas his friends, who had taken the opposite line to him, 
had offended,—I do not mean to imply, I say, that Job’s treatment of the subject is, 
in all respects, unexceptionable. Indeed, that his feelings hurried him away, and 
required correction, we learn not only from the rebuke which Jehovah administered 
(‘The Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said} * * * Shall he that 
contendeth with the Almighty instruct him? he that reproveth God, let him answer 
it”—xl. 2), but also from Job’s own retractation :—“ I’ know that Thou canst do every- 
thing, and that no thought can be withholden from Thee. * * * TI uttered that I 
understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not. * * * Where- 
fore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.”—xlii. 2-6. That such an ad- 
mission does not, however, involve anything in the least derogatory to the inspired 
character of the Book will at once appear from attending to the true idea of Inspira- 
tion, as laid down in the preceding pages. —Cf. supra, p. 41, note ". 

? Ὁ, F. Keil, in his continuation of Hiivernick’s ‘‘ Hinleitung,” B. iii. s. 300. 

5 In proof of its historical character it is unnecessary to say more than that the insti- 
tution of the Feast of Purim (ch. ix. 21, &c.)—founded upon the fact which forms the 
entire theme of the Book—ean receive no other possible explanation than by admit- 
ting the reality of that fact. This is granted in substance even by De Weitte (§ 198, 
b.). In proof of its inspiration, it need only be said that it was received into the 
Canon (see Lecture ii. p. 43, &c). 


392 APPENDIX B. 


or had the Israelites who continued to dwell in the land of the Gentiles 
any share in those promises? The Book of Esther affords one great proof, 
—from which many others may be inferred,—that even in the Dispersion 
the children of Abra‘sam, if they only sought their God, ever experienced 
His support; if not, as in other days, by manifestations of miraculous 
power, yet an assistance which proved that His word had not been spoken 
in vain. “The manner in which the deliverance, at that time, ensued, 
affords, next to the history of Joseph, the greatest proof which the Bible 
contains, of how God, in the ordinary course of His Providence, with quiet, 
noiseless rule, connects, ordains, guides the most minute circumstances :— 
everything appearing to come to pass as if by chance; and everything, at 
the same time, contributing to His ends as certainly as by means of a 
manifestly miraculous dispensation.” * 

One word as to the popular objection, that the absence of the name of 
God from the Book of Esther deprives it of a religious character. It might 
be sufficient to reply, that were this conclusion just, it would never have 
been received into the Canon by the Jews of Palestine :—but a full answer 
is supplied by that portion of the narrative which describes the cause of the 
calamity which threatened the Jews—ch. iii. 1, ὅθ. The occasion from 
which it arose was in the strictest sense a religious question: namely, the 
cefusal to perform an act of heathen adoration, because the Law of the Jews 
did not permit it. The author points out this fact in the clearest manner: 
“The King’s servants that were in the King’s gate bowed and reverenced 
Haman: for the King had so commanded concerning him. But Mordecai 
bowed not. * * * And Haman said unto King Ahasuerus, There is a 
certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the people in all the 
provinces of thy kingdom; and their laws are diverse from all people, 
neither keep they the King’s laws.”— iii. 2-8°. This conduct of Mordecai, 
in fact, is an exact parallel to what is recorded of Daniel (ch. iii. and 
vi.): all such instances exhibiting on the part of the different individuals, 
the same intense devotion to the Law, and the institutions of the Theocracy.* 


1 That such was the impression produced by this narrative upon the Jewish mind, 
is plain from the traditional statements preserved in the apocryphal additions to the 
Book: “Then Mardocheus said, God hath done these things. * * * My nation is 
this Israel which cried to God and were saved: for the Lord hath saved His people. 
* + * God remembered His people, and justified his inheritance.”—ch. x. 4-12 
(after the Greek). Is what Bishop Butler calls “ The appearance of a standing mira- 
ele in the Jews remaining a distinct people in their dispersion,” notwithstanding their 
almost uninterrupted persecution, anything else than a perpetuated repetition of the 
events of this history? 

2 Képpen “ Die Bibel ein Werk der gottl. Weisheit,” B. 11. 8, 102. 

3 This fact is again confirmed by the tradition:— Then Mardocheus thought upon 
all the works of the Lord, and made his prayer unto Him, saying, Thou art Lord of all 
things, Thou knowest, Lord, that it was neither in contempt nor pride, nor for any 
desire of glory, that I did not bow down to proud Aman. For I could have been 
content with good will for the salvation of Israel to kiss the soles of his feet. But I 
did this that I might not prefer the glory of man above the glory of God : neither 
will I worship any but Thee, O God.”—ch. xiii. 8-14, Mordecai’s conduct is ex- 
plained on the same grounds by Josephus, Ant, XI. vi. 5. 

4 See Hiivernick, “ Hinleitung,” Th. 1. Abth. i. s. 360. To the same effect also is 
the tone of Esther’s prayer, which the tradition has also preserved, and which ends 
thus: “Ὁ Thou mighty God above all, hear the voice of the forlorn.”—ch, xiv. 19 
Cf. also the prayers preserved by Josephus. See Koppen, loc. cit. s. 107. 


APPENDIX B. 8985 


1Π. The Books of Chronicles.'| Even a rapid survey of the Books of 
Chronicles will exhibit their object as both strictly defined, and of the most 
profound importance. 

On the return of the Jews from their Captivity not only the means of 
reviving the spirit of the nation, crushed by a protracted exile, but also 
the renewal of the ancient sacred institutions and a fundamental reform of 
the abuses that had crept in, were the subjects which occupied all minds. 
Hence, the promises to the dynasty of David, the restoration of the Temple, 
and the details of public worship, were topics of absorbing interest. The 
contents of the Books of Chronicles exemplify this state of feeling :—The 
section 1 Chron, i—ix. is deveted to genealogies; ch. x.-xxix. to the history 
of David; 2 Chron. i.-ix. contain the history of Solomon,—and this chiefly 
as regards his part as builder of the Temple; ch. x.-xxxvi. embrace the 
events of the Kingdom of Judah, with special reference to the worship of 
Jehovah. As to the historical details, it may be observed, in general, that 
their bearing upon other parts of the Old Testament, and their relation to 
the Divine Scheme, as there exhibited, do not yield in point of interest or 
importance to any other portion of Scripture. To prove this latter asser- 
tion I must restrict myself to a single example elucidating a principle 
already pointed out,’—viz., that God’s Revelation has been, for the most 
part, conveyed according to the remarkable Law that “each prediction 
proceeds from, and attaches itself to, some definite fact in the historical 
present.” 

The twentieth chapter of the second Book of Chronicles contains an ac- 
count of Jehoshaphat’s victory over the Moabites, Ammonites, and other 
tribes. “ A brilliant confirmation of this account is afforded by the pre- 
diction (without this information quite unintelligible) contained in Joel, 11]. 
The entire form of the prophetic intuition rests upon the ground of this 
narrative: it is the swbstratum of the great judgment pronounced by God 
upon the enemies of the Theocracy. In the valley of Jehoshaphat the 
heathen are gathered to be judged (Joel, iii. 2). As in that war, so here 
also Jehovah leads His heroes ( Thither cause Thy mighty ones to come 
down, Ὁ Lord,’—ver. 11). Hosts upon hosts have assembled (ver. 
14.—p.207 Brn; cf. 2 Chron. xx. 2, 15—an yen). It is not now “the 
valley of blessing” (7593 pay—2 Chron. xx. 26), but “the valley of de- 
cision” (yrans psx—Joel, ni, 14). A time still more happy, and meom- 
parably more glorious than that under Jehoshaphat, (2 Chron, xx. 27, &c.) 
follows the victory of the Lord (Joel, ii. 18, d&e.)*” 

To return to the genealogies. The account of the genealogy of the 


1 See Havernick, ‘‘ Hinleitung,” Th. m. Abth. 1. 5.114 ff Dr. Moses Stuart— 
having enumerated, without annexing any refutation, most of the strong points which 
De Wette and others conceive that they have established against the inspiration of 
these books,—observes: “The devout and reverential reader of the Old Testament 
has, it must be confessed, some difficulties of a serious nature to encounter in regard 
to such things in the Chronicles as have been pointed out. The tyro in matters of 
sacred criticism must certainly feel that he has a formidable task before him; specially 
if he adopts the theory of plenary verbal inspiration.” —On the O. T. Canon, p. 142. 
On the consideration of so extensive a subject I cannot enter here; but would refer 
to Havernick’s admirable criticism, which, I should observe, Dr. Stuart states (p. 146) 
that he has not seen. 

2 Lecture iv. p. 147, &e. * Havernick, loc cit. 8. 216. 


894 APPENDIX Β. 


Patriarchs is followed by that of the Tribe of Judah, and of the house ot 
David—1 Chron. 11.--ἶν. 23. Compared with this statement, the genea 
logical notices relative to Simeon, Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh (iv. 24—v 
26) are exceedingly brief; and these again are followed by the particularly 
copious genealogies of the Levites (vi. 1-18). The Tribe of Benjamin is 
mentioned at great length (vii. 6-123 viil. 1-40; ix. 35-44); but the 
Tribes of the Kingdom of Israel are either glanced at cursorily (as Naph- 
tali, ch. vii. 13), or passed over in silence (as Zebulon and Dan): while, 
on the other hand, the sacred writer comes back once more to the families 
of the Levites in ch. ix. 1-34. Two important features of the case thus 
present themselves :—(1) We know that on the return from the Exile in 
Babylon ali persons were excluded from the sacerdotal office who were un- 
able to prove their Levitical descent (Ezra, ii. 61, 62; Neh, vii. 64, 65); 
and we learn from Josephus (“ Cont. Apion.,” lib, τ. vii., and “ Vita,” 81) 
that this strictness was never relaxed, Josephus also tells us the motive 
of such precautions: to this chosen family was committed the custody of 
the Sacred Books; and the accurate preservation of the genealogies he 
considers “ both natural and necessary,” in order to secure more perfectly 
a deposit so precious.’ Hence, therefore, we clearly discern the import- 
ance of this portion of the genealogical records of the Books of Chronicles. 
But (2) we can at once perceive how the family annals of David’s line are 
inseparably connected with the whole scheme of Redemption, The man- 
ner in which this record is inserted (see 1 Chron. iii.) is particularly strik- 
ing. “In communicating the genealogy of the Davidic family alone the 
author makes an exception, and continues it to his own time. Not with- 
out just grounds. In the period that followed the Exile the Messianic 
hopes, awakened by the subjection of the people, were again excited: the 
Messiah Himself, in accordance with a promise recently given, was to adorn 
by His Presence the Temple which had been erected anew. It must have 
been a matter of importance for the writer’s contemporaries to find col- 
lected here the names of the still remaining descendants of the ancient 
reigning house; who, although little celebrated, and even otherwise un- 
known to us from the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, were yet to be the 
ancestors of the longed-for Deliverer. He therefore continues the gene- 
alogy of the line of Solomon up to two generations after the Exile—e., 
perhaps up to his own time. Thus, ch. ii. 19, 20, the sons of Zerubbabel 
are named :—Meshullam, Hananiah, &c; to which are added the names 
of two sons of Hananiah, Pelatiah and Jesaiah, with whom the gene- 
alogy terminates—the author then proceeding to enumerate some of the 
posterity of David.” 


1 See Lecture ii. p. 68, and infra, Appendix F. 

? Movers, “ Kritische Untersuch,” s. 29. Hivernick confirms the justice of this 
remark by pointing out that, in a similar period of humiliation,—‘ in which but the 
faintest traces of the Messianic idea can be pointed out,” viz., the age of the Macca- 
bees,—the idea of the permanence of the royal line of David was still vividly cher- 
ished: ‘David for being merciful possessed the throne of an everlasting kingdom.” — 
1 Mace. ii. 57; cf. Eeclus. xlvii. 11; and as to the future glories of Jerusalem, see 
Tobit, xiii. 7-18; xiv. 4-1—xabdc ἐλιίλησαν οἱ προφῆται ;—see his ‘ Neue kritische 
Untersuch. iib. das B. Daniel,” 8. 84, 


APPENDIX 6. 395 


APPENDIX C. 
MODERN THEORIES OF INSPIRATION. 


(Lecture 1—Pace 34.) 


Any account of the theories of Inspiration which have been fut forward 
in modern times naturally commences with the period of the Reforma- 
tion. In the general religious commotion of that epoch, it could scarcely 
have been expected that the heat of party controversy should not have 
prompted men of the most opposite views to hazard opinions respecting 
the authority of Scripture, which in a cooler frame of mind they would 
have wholly disavowed. And, accordingly, we find both Protestants 
and adherents of the Church of Rome equally obnoxious to such a charge. 
In proof of this assertion one can appeal to the writings of Luther and 
of Erasmus. ; 

I. The opinions of Luther with respect to Scripture——the Divine char- 
acter of which, it is, perhaps, needless to remark, he resolutely and consist- 
ently maintained,—had relation to two distinct subjects: the canonicah 
authority of certain portions of the Bible, and the nature of Inspiration 
in general, It has been already observed that these two questions, al- 
though continually confounded, are wholly distinct; and attention has 
been drawn to the fact—exhibited by every page of his writings—that 
Luther’s rejection of particular Books arose, not from his refusing to ac- 
knowledge the Divine origin and character of the Bible, but from his 
venturing to lay down a certain standard by which to test the claim of 
any composition to have proceeded from God. The natural result of 
such a procedure on his part—and the same must necessarily happen in 
every similar case—was the rejection of those writings which failed, in his 
estiination, to satisfy the criterion by which he assumed that they must be 
judged.’ 

“These views of Luther,” writes H. W. J. Thiersch, “of which the 
subordinate position occupied in our German editions of the Bible by the 
Epistle of the Hebrews, the Epistles of James and Jude, together with 
the Apocalypse, is a permanent memorial,—were either upheld for a period 
by his successors, the orthocox Lutherans (although in a milder form), or, 
at least, were judged very leniently.”* 


' See supra, Lect. i. p. 47, and Lect. ii. p. 79. The criterion which Luther pro- 
posed will be seen from the following extract from his Preface to the Epistles of 8. 
James and S. Jude: “ Das Amt eines rechten Apostels ist, dass er von Christi Leiden, 
und Auferstehung, und Amt predige, und lege desselbigen Glaubens Grund, wie er 
selbst saget, Joh. xv. 27: ‘Ihr werdet von mir zeugen.’ Und darinne stimmen alle 
rechtschaffene heilige Bucher iiberein, dass sie allesammt Christum predigen und 
treiben. Auch ist das der rechte Priifestein aller Biicher zu tadeln, wenn man siehet, OB 
SIE CHRISTUM TREIBEN ODER NICHT. * * * Was Christum nicht lehret, das ist 
noch nicht Apostolisch, wenne gleich Sanct Petrus oder St. Paulus lehrete. Wiederum, 
was Christum prediget, das ware Apostolisch wenns gleich Judas, Hannas, Pilatus, 
und Herodes that.”— Werke (Walch’s Aufy., B. xiv. s. 149). 

? “Versuch zur Herstell,” s. 17. Of the evil consequences of Luther’s rash de- 
cisions on this subject, every one who has looked into the writings of neologists, of 
whatever school, must be painfully aware. His expressions are invariably brought 


396 APPENDIX 0. 


With respect to the other subject touched upon by Luther—viz., the 
nature of Inspiration itself—the following passage from the “Elementa 
Theologie Dogmatic” of the learned Mosheim gives a succinct and just 
account :— 

“Duze sunt sententiz de vocabulo Sacre Scripture. Multi, in primis 
doctores ecclesiz# nostra, hoc vocabulum sensu latissimo sumunt, et per id 
intelligunt omne quod scriptum est, ut non modo veritates, sed etiam for- 

mam Spiritui S. tribuant. Duo nempe sunt in Sacra Seriptura : materia, 
et forma. Materia sunt ipse veritates ; forma est stilus, vocabula, phrases, 
et constructiones, &c. At sunt tamen in ecclesia nostra nonnulli qui secus 
sentiunt, et docent Spiritum S. tantum materiam Sacre Scripture inspirasse, 
sed non formam. Esto propositio: Fides sola justificat; hac veritas a 
Spiritu S. proficiscitur, et forma ejus a sancto Paulo. Hujus sententie# in 
nostra ecclesia auctor est ipse Lutherus, qui in nonnullis locis scriptorum 
suorum clare fatetur Spiritum S. modo materiam inspirasse. Preecipue 
Theologi Sze. xvi. hanc sententiam habuere. Sed hee sententia a Ponti- 
ficiis in defensionem propositionum suarum trahebatur. Hance enim Ponti- 
ficii conclusionem fecerunt :—Si Spiritus S. materiam tautum inspiravit, 
fieri potuit ut Prophetz et Apostoli in enunciando et scribendo erraverint, 
et satis luculenter propositiones et veritates ἃ Spiritu S. inspiratas non pro- 
posuerint. Inde concludebant: necessarium ergo est, ut Scriptures Sacre 
aliud principium adjungatur. Quum ita concluderent Pontificii, Theologi 
nostri deserebant Lutheri sententiam, et sub fine Sizec. xvi. et sub initium 
Szec. xvii. hane sententiam assumserunt ! Sacram Scripturam non modo 
quoad materiam, sed etiam quoad formam a Spiritu 8. inspiratam esse. 
Heee sententia primo in Saxonia oriebatur, et deinde per totam fere eccle- 
siam dilatata est. At supersunt tamen quidam Theologi, qui sententiam 
Lutheri dimittere nolunt.”—pp. 111, 112. 

The reaction to which Mosheim here refers may be exemplified by the 
theory of the younger Buxtorf, who went so far as to maintain the inspired 
authority of even the Hebrew vowel-points and accents:’ and the strict 

‘mechanical’ theory itself of Inspiration (cf. supra, p. 21, &.), in which 
that reaction terminated, is accurately laid down by Carpzovius, in his 
“ Critica Sacra Veteris Testamenti :”— 

“Plura involvit Inspiratio momenta. (1) Nihil hie tribuendum esse 
hominibus preter operam solum ministerialem, qua illapsum divinum per- 
cipientes, prompte ac alacriter mentem manumque Deo commodarent, qui 


forward, however unjustly, as a justification of any amount of scepticism or disrespect 
to which such writers think fit to subject Holy Scripture. As examples I may refer 
to the complacency with which Bretschneider (‘‘ Handb. der Dogmatik,” B. i. s. 342) 
allades to Luther’s opinions; as well as to the remark of Mr. Greg (“ The Creed of 
Christendom”): ‘' Luther, in the Preface to his translation, inserted a protest against 
the inspiration of the Apocalypse, which protest he solemnly charged every one to 
prefix who chose to publish the translation. [In this protest one of his chief grounds 
for the rejection is the suspicious fact that this writer alone blazons forth his own in- 
spiration,” p. 19. 

1 “Si Punctatio, et Accentuatio Biblica non profecta esset a Viris Propheticis, et 
extraordinariis Spiritus S. instructis donis; sed a sapientibus vulgaribus, quales seu 
his nostris temporibus, seu superioribus szeculis, post Prophetarum tempora, imo post 
absolutum et obsignatum Talmud, fuerunt; nullo modo ita παμψήφει et ἀναντιῤῥήτως 
a gente Judaica esset acceptata,” &e.—Tract. de Punct. Vocal., Pars I. 6. Vv. 
p. 335. 


APPENDIX 0. 397 


utramque pro libitu suo ageret, moveret, ac dinigeret. (2) Ad unum 
solumque Deum quicquid est Scripture S., tanquam 1 ad causam principem, 
referri debere, ita quidem, ut non modo mysteria seripta, inde divina, sed 
ipsa quoque ᾽γραφή (tam scribendi actio transiens, quam ejus effectus, 
voces, apices, ac liter) θεόπνευστος esset, ac ἱερὰ γράμματα prodirent. 
(3) Tue propter immediatum et singularissimum cum amanuensibus, 
ad scribendi ministerium excitatis, concursum, quo eorum et voluntatem 
impulit ut prompte scriberent, et mentem ‘lluminavit, ac suggestione 
rerum vocumque consignandarum, replevit, ut intelligenter scriberent, 
et manum direxit, ut infallibiliter scribereat, neque tamen plus con- 
ferrent ad Scripturam, quam calamus velocis scribe (Ps. xlv. 1).”—Pars 
I. p. 43. 

II. The opinions of Erasmus may be inferred from an Epistle written 
to him by Eckius, dated “ Ingolstadt, 2 Feb. A.D. 1518 :’—‘ Primo autem 
omnium, ut hine exordiar, plures moleste ferunt, te in Annotationibus 
Mattheei capite secundo sic scripsisse : ‘ Sive quod Ipsi Evangeliste testi- 
monia hujusmodi non e libris deprompserint ; sed_memorie fidentes, ita 
ut fit, lapsi sint.’ Istis enim verbis innuere videris, Evangelistas more hu- 
mano scripsisse: et quod memorize eonfisi hee scripserint, quod libros 
videre neglexerint, quod ita, hoc est, ob eam causam lapsi sint. Audi, mi 
Erasme, arbitrarisne Christianum patienter laturum, Evangelistas in Evan- 
geliis lapsos? Si hic vacillat Sacree Scripturze auctoritas, que pars alia 
sine suspicione erroris erit ? ut pulcherrimo argumento A. Augustinus col- 
ligit.”"—(ap. Erasmi opp., Epist. 303, Lugd. Bat. 1708, t. 111. p. 296.) 

These views of Erasmus were chiefly assailed by the church of Spain; 
and the excitement which they occasioned he himself describes in his ad- 
dress, “ Candido Lectori,” at the close of the writing entitled, Desid. 
Erasmi Apologia ἃν. articulos aliquot per Monachos quosdam in His- 
pantiis exhibitos” (Opp. t. ix. p. 1015). “Quid hic commemorem quos 
tumultus excitarint primum in aula Cesaris, deinde Salamantice ; quoties 
palam ac publice vociferati sint hereticum et Luthero deteriorem Eras- 
mum ?”—(p. 1092). As an example of the objections of the Spanish 
Monks, may be taken the following, as stated under the heading, “ Contra 
auctoritatem Sacre Scripture, Evangelistarum, et Apostolorum :”—* Ob- 
jectio 45. In annotationibus Matthzei cap. ii. in editione 8tia manifeste 
labitur Erasmus, si quis Christiana pietate rem consideret, non couteutus 
verborum implicamentis. Nam et Evangelistas errasse, lapsosque esse me- 
moria contendit. Asserit item ex uno errore in Sacris Literis non derogari 
totius Scripture auctoritati.” —(Lérd. p. 1070.) Erasmus replied that he 
had not himself maintained this opinion, but had proposed it “adversus 
morosos et impios calumniatores,” in order to defend the authority of Scrip- 
ture; so that, even had its writers erred in unimportant matters, the whole 
structure might not be thereby overturned. Explanations of this nature, 
he adds, had been introduced by him “ per fictionem ;” and he obviously 
submits to the objections urged against him, when he says, “ Responsio 
45 :’—“ Et tamen quod ad meum sensum attinet, mayis eorum sententie 
faveo qui credunt Apostolos in Scripturis canonicis duntaxat, nec sententia 
nec verb? lapsos fuisse.” The objectionable passages, too, appear to have 
been erased from subsequent editions of his Commentary. 

The next appearance of any controversy upon this question within the 


398 APPENDIX ©. 


Church of Rome was during the Jansenist dispute. In 1586 the Jesuits, 
Leonard Less, and Jchn Hamel, in their public lectures in the University 
of Louvain, on “ Scripture, Grace, and Predestination,” advanced, among 
others, the following propositions :—(1) “Ut aliquid sit Scriptura Sacra, 
non esi necessarium singula ejus verba inspirata esse a Spiritu S$.” (2) 
“Non est necessarium ut singulz veritates et sententia# sint immediate a 
Spiritu S. ipsi scriptori inspiratz.” (3) “Liber aliquis (qualis forte est 
secundus Machabeorum) humana industria, sine assistentia Spiritus S. 
scriptus, si Spiritus S. postea testetur nihil ibi esse falsum, efficitur Scrip- 
tura sacra.” These propositions were at once condemned. The Arch- 
bishops of Cambray and Mechlin submitted them to the University of 
Douai; and the learned Estius’ having drawn up a severe criticism, in the 
name of the Theological Faculty, the Propositions were publicly censured 
by both Universities’ (A. D. 1588). The third “ Proposition” was spe- 
cially condemned :—the “ Censura” of Douai* declaring, “ Multo magis hee 
quam dus superiores improbanda est assertio, tanquam manifesti erroris 
periculum continens.” This “ Censura” also justly argues that, on such a 
principle, any writing of which the truth has been proved (e. g. the 
Athanasian Creed, or a book of Livy or Thucydides of which the facts 
are admitted), might be classed with Scripture : adding, “ Non enim ideo 
inspiratum aliquid divinitus est, quia postea sit approbatum, sed ideo est 
approbatum quia fwerat divinitus inspiratum.” The “ Censura” of Louvain 
compares the doctrine maintained in the objectionable propositions’ to the 
heresy of the Aunomeeans (see supra, Lecture ii. p. 87). 


1 The opinions of Estius as to Inspiration may be estimated from the following re- 
marks on 2 Tim. iii. 16; where, having quoted the Vulgate, he states that the passage 
may be more clearly understood from the Greek :— 

“ ¢Omnis Scriptura divinitus inspirata, et utilis:’—Subaudi est. Itaque duo affir- 
mantur:—omnem Scripturam esse divinitus inspiratam; et, eandam esse utilem ad ea 
qu sequuntur. Scriptwram intelligit sacram, de qua dixerat: Sacras literas nostt. 
Nam Scripturze nomine passim in Bibliis Sacra Scriptura, per antonomasiam significa- 
tur: ut Matt. xxii. 29, John, v. 39, et x. 35. Recte igitur et verissime, ex hoc loco 
statuitur omnem Scripturam sacram et canonicam Spiritu Sancto dictante esse con- 
scriptam ; ita nimirum ut non solum sententice, sed et verba singula, et verborum 
ordo, ac tota dispositio sit a Deo, tanquam per Semetipsum loquente, aut scribente. 
Hoc enim est ‘Scripturam esse Divinitus inspiratam.’ ’—Comm. in D. Pauli Epist. 

2 See Schréckh, ‘‘ Kirchen-Geschichte seit der Reformation,” B. iv. s. 293. 

3 “Oensuree Facultatum Sacree Theologiz Lovaniensis ac Duacensis, super quibus- 
dam articulis de Sacra Scriptura, Gratia, et Preedestinatione, A. D. 1586. Lovanii 
scripto traditis.”—Paris, 1641. 

4 Rudelbach (“‘ Die Lehre von der Inspir.,” Zeitschr. 1840, H. ii. s. 40) makes the 
judicious remark that the view advanced in Proposition (3) is plainly founded upon an 
incapacity to regard the Word of God as one organized whole. He also draws atten- 
tion to an article in Bayle’s “ Dictionary” on Father Adam, a Jesuit, who in 1650 
published a sermon against the Jansenists, in which, according to Bayle, he spoke 
very freely of the Inspiration of both the Old and the New Testanfent. The Jansen- 
ists replied in a pamphlet entitled “ Defense de S. Augustin contre le Pére Adam,” in 
which they appealed to the “Censure” of Louvain and Douai in the case of Less and 
Hamel. Rudelbach states that he has been unable to see this pamphlet. I have 
myself been equally unsuccessful; a circumstance not unusual in any matter con- 
nected with the Jansenist controversy. 

In Doddridge’s “ Dissertation on the Inspiration of the New Testament,” a curious 
opinion is advanced, in some respects analogous to the Jesuits’ Proposition (3): 
“Should God miraculously assure me that any particular writing contained nothing 
but the truth; and should He, at the same time, teil me it had been drawn up with- 


APPENDIX 6. 399 


The Jesuits having appealed to the Sorbonne, and to the Universities 
of Treves and Mayence, forwarded a copy of the “ Propositions” to their 
General at Rome. The dispute was, however, terminated by an “ Apos- 
tolical Breve,” dated April 15, A.D. 1588, in which Pope Sixtus V. en- 
joined silence on all parties until the affair should be decided by the Holy 
See. In this state it still remains. 

In Calmet’s “ Dissertation sur l’Inspiration des Livres Sacres’”” mention 
is made of a treatise by Claude Frassen, a Franciscan monk (A. D. 1662), 
in which three kinds of Inspiration are distinguished: “antecedent,” 
“ concomitant,” “ consequent”—the last being identical with the Jesuit’s 
third Proposition already referred to. 

The following opinion was maintained by Henry Holden, a Doctor of 
the Theological Faculty of Paris (A. 1). 1650) :-— 

“ Auxilium speciale, divinitus preestitum authori cujuslibet scripti quod 
pro verbo Dei recipit Ecclesia, ad ea solummodo se porrigit que vel sint 
pure doctrinalia, vel proximum aliquem aut necessarium habeant ad doc- 
trinalia respectum. In iis vero que non sunt de instituto scriptoris, vel ad 
alia referuntur, eo tantum subsidio Deum illi adfuisse judicamus, quod 
piisimis ceteris authoribus commune sit.”—Divine Fidei Anal., lib. 1. ὁ. 
v. P. R. Simon, having quoted this passage, and having stated that 
Holden’s work had been approved by the Chancellor of the University 
of Paris, adds :—‘ Je me contente d’exposer I’ opinion de ce Docteur de 
la Faculté de Theologie de Paris sans oser la combattre, la voyant autorisée 
par de si sages Maitres. Je π᾿ ose pourtant pas l’appuyer dans toute son 
etendue. JI edit été bon qwil eds donné quelques exemples de ce qu’ il en- 
tend par les matieres qui ne sont point purement de doctrine, ou qui n’y 
ont point une entiere relation.” —“ Hist, Critique du texte du N. T,,” ch. 
Xxiv. p. 295. 

The view maintained, at present, in the Church of Rome, may be gathered 
from Perrone, the latest writer of authority in that Communion : “ Jure mer- 
ito Concilium Tridentinum docet unum Deum esse librorum canonicorum 
utriusque Testamenti auctorem, seu eos esse libros sacros, utpote Spiritu 
S. afflante, saltem quoad res et sententias, conscriptos. * * * Diximus 
saltem quoad res et sententias, quia cum noluerit Ecclesia definire, seu di- 
rimere questionem inter scholasticos agitatam, utrum preterea Deus verba 
ipsa dictaverit, nexumque verborum et periodorum ; ideo ne controversiam 
domesticam cum Ecclesiz doctrina temere permisceremus, coarctavimus 
propositionis sensum ad rei substantiam, sine qua vera Inspiratio Divina 
neque est, neque intelligi quidem potest.” 


ont any miraculous assistance at all,—though I could not then call it inspired, I 
should be as much obliged to receive and submit to it, on its being thus attested by 
God, as if every single word had been immediately dictated by Him.”— Works, vol. v. 
Pp 346, ed. 1804, 

“Commentaire sur la Bible,” t. viii. p. 741. 

2 “ Preelectiones Theologice,” vol. 11. pars ii. p. 71. The opinion of Maldonatns 
is hardly reconcilable with such a conclusion:—‘ Marcus iisdem quibus Matthzeus 
[c. xxvi. 28] verbis, scribit, ‘Hic est Sanguis Meus Novi Test. ;’ Lucas vero ‘ Hic est 
calix Novum Test. in Meo Sanguine.’ Paulus autem ‘Hic calix N. T. est in Meo 
Sanguine. * * * Nego Christwm hec verba dixisse. Cum enim Mattheus, qui 
aderat, et Marcus, qui ex Mattheo didicerat, scribant Christum his verbis Sanguinem 
Suum tradidisse: ‘Hic est Sanguis Meus, N T”’ * * * squum est credere Mat 


400 APPENDIX (. 


Meanwhile a systematized opposition to the inspiration of Scripture 
was growing up in another quarter; suggested by the writings of an in- 
dividual through whom, as will presently be seen, the source of every hue 
and shade of modern scepticism on this question may be ultimately traced. 
Quinet has truly said: “L’homme qui de nos jours a fait faire le plus 
grand pas ἃ |’Allemagne, ce n’est ni Kant, ni Lessing, ni le grand Fréd- 
éric; c’est Benedict Spinosa.” Benedict (or Baruch) Spinoza was born 
in 1632, and died in 1677. He was the first, observes Téllner, “ who 
made a tolerably complete collection of the objections against Inspiration. 
The result was curious. Some theologians gave up the cause as entirely lost ; 
while others attempted still to maintain it, according to the usual theory.”* 
The subject, thus placed upon a new footing, was soon taken up in a 
kindred spirit by Le Clere, whose celebrated Letters, entitled “ Sentimens 
de quelques Theologiens de Hollande,” were first published in 1685. 
These Letters excited an immense sensation, especially in England;* bu 
they were after all a mere reflexion of the ideas of Spinoza. As P. R. 
Simon truly observed: “En effet, ces Theologiens [from whom Le Clere’s 
work purported to have proceeded] n’ ont fait autre chose pour combattre 
Y Inspiration de  Ecriture Sainte, que de mettre en un plus grand jour les 
raisons de Spinosa, qui a outré cette matiére sur de faux prejugés dont il 
etoit preoccupé.”* “It is unnecessary to give a particular account of Le 
Clere’s system. Suflice it to say, that he denied the fact of any Divine 
assistance in the composition of the Bible; maintaining that the ordinary 
powers of memory were sufficient to enable the authors of Scripture to 
record any communications from God which the prophets might have re- 
ceived, or the facts of history. His interpretation of some of the promises 
of Christ to His Disciples has been already quoted (Lecture vi. p. 246, 
note ‘); in addition to which he further asserted that ὅδ, Peter’s Vision 
(Acts, x.), and the controversy respecting Circumcision, proved that 
Christ’s promises that they should be guided into “all truth” were not 
fulfilled. From this period the works of Semler (A. Ὁ. 1771-1773), and 
the treatise of Téllner* (A. D. 1772), may be said to form the transition 


thei potius et Marci, quam Luc et Pauli, verbis Christum usum fuisso. * * * 
Oredendum igitur est, verbis potius Matthei et Marci, quam Luce et Pauli usum esse.” — 
Comm. in Matth. ο. xxvi., ed. Mogunt. t. i. p. 314. 

+ “Die gottliche Eingebung,” 5. 453. 

2 A few of the works which were published in reply may be mentioned: —“ A 
Vindication of the Divine Authority and Inspiration of the writings of the Old and 
New Testament. In answer to the ‘Five Letters concerning the Inspiration of Scrip- 
ture,’” by W. Lowth, B. D.: Oxford, 1692.—‘‘The Inspiration of the New Testa- 
ment asserted and explained in answer to some modern writers,” by C. J. Lamothe: 
London, 1694; the occasion of which the author states (Pref: p. 3) to have been Le 
Clere’s “ Letters,” to which replies had already appeared from “ M. Witsius of Holland, 
Mr. Lowth, a divine of Oxford, Father Simon, and Father Le Vassour.”—“ The In- 
spiration of the Old and New Testament,” by Edm. Calamy, D. D.: London, 1710; 
who observes in his Preface: ‘There is more of subtilty and artifice in those Let- 
ters than in anything of that kind I ever yet met with.” 

3. “ Histoire Critique du Nouv. Test.,” ch. xxv. p- 303. To the same effect Tollner 
writes: ‘‘Spinoza und Le Clere begegnen hier einander.”—loe. cit. s. 314. 

4 The unsatisfactory character of this work is well described by Rudelbach: 
“T6lIner stellt uns klar die Fraction in der Zeit dar: viele schéne apologetische 
Reminiscenzen; daneben aber ein wiistes Streben, alle Gewissheit bis auf einen 
gewissen Grad zu verfliichtigen, um nachher gerade so viel in seine Construction 


APPEX DIX C. 401 


+o the systems of more modern times ;—times in which, as De Maistre 
has remarked with too great truth: “ Un savant, en com:mentant Anacréon 
ou Catulle, trouvera occasion naturelle d’ attaquer Moise.” 

But I have said that the writings of Spinoza point out the source to 
which the several varieties of modern errors respecting Inspiration may be 
traced. Spinoza, in a word, by bringing the opinions of his nation under 
the notice of subsequent writers, has introduced into Christian theology 
the speculations of the medieval Jews, and more particularly the philoso- 
phy of Maimonides, the master spirit of his race during the Christian era,’ 
To such speculations are to be referred, I conceive, each of the three 
classes of opinions under which the various theories of Inspiration that 
exaggerate the human element of Scripture, may, speaking generally, be 
arranged :° 

I. The two leading representatives of the views held by the first class 
of writers—those, viz., “ Who have changed the formula ‘ The Bible zs the 
Word of God, into ‘The Bible contains the Word of God,’ ”—are, Le 
Clerc (whose connexion with Maimonides through Spinoza has been al- 
ready traced), and Grotius, who may be regarded as the representative of 
the Arminian school. Grotius openly ayows the source of his opinions :— 

“ Vere dixi non omnes libros qui sunt in Hebreeo Canone dictatos a 
Spiritu Sancto. Scriptos esse cum pio animi motu, non nego: et hoc est 
quod judicavit Synagoga Magna, cujus judicio in hac re stant Hebrei. 
Sed a Spiritu Sancto dictari historias nihil fuit opus: satis fuit scriptorem 
memoria valere circa res spectatas, aut diligentia in describendis Veterum 
commentariis. Vox quoque Spiritus Sancti ambigua est: nam aut sig- 
nificat, quomodo ego accepi, affatum Divinum, qualem habuere tum 
Prophets ordinarii, tum interdum David et Daniel ; aut significat pium 
motum, sive facultatem impellentem ad loquendum salutaria vivendi pree- 
cepta, vel res politicas et civiles, quomodo vocem Spiritus Sancti interpre- 
tatur Maimonides ubi de scriptis illis aut historicis, aut moralibus agit. 
Si Lucas, Divino afflatu dictante, sua scripsisset, inde potius sibi sumsisset 
auctoritatem, ut Prophets faciunt, quam a testibus quorum fidem est 
secutus. Sic in 115 quae Paulum agentem vidit scribendis, nuilo ipsi dic- 
tante afflatu opus. Quid ergo est, cur Luce libri sint Canonici? Quia 
pie ac fideliter scriptos, et de rebus momenti ad salutem maximi, Ecclesia 
primorum temporum judicayit.”—Votum pro pace Keclesiastica, Opera, 
ed. 1679, t. il. p. 672. 

The parentage, therefore, of this class of opinions is clear. Grotius, 
however, received his principles dérectly trom the Jewish Doctors. 

Il. The origin of the second class, comprising those hypotheses “ which 
assume various Degrees of Inspiration,” is no less obvious. I have already 
alluded (Lecture ii. p. 62, note *) to the three “ Degrees of Inspiration” 


aufzunehmen, als inm wahrscheinlich diinkte; als eine zweite Penelope zerstort er 
das Tagsgewebe um Nachtzeit wieder, nur dass er keinen heimkehrenden Herrn 
erwartet.”—loc. cit. 8. 61. Ἶ 

1 Baumgarten Crusius (“ Bibl. Theol.” s. 220) having alluded to the notion of the 
‘intellectus agens” put forward by Maimonides, truly says: ‘ Maimonides ist in die- 
sem Artikel, wnd wberhaupt, die Quelle des Spinoza.” 

2 See Lecture i. p. 34, ἄς. It is, of course, to be understood that any one of 
these three classes may be held in combination with either or both of the others, 


26 


402 APPENDIX 6. 


asuribed ty the Jewish Doctors to the writers of the Old Testament ; but 
some additional remarks on the subject are necessary here. 

The Old Testament, from a period long anterior to the birth of Christ, 
has been divided into three parts, the Kethubim or Hagiographa (includ- 
ing the Psalms, Proverbs, Job, the Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, 
Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and tie Chronicles); the 
Law (including the five Books of Moses); and the Prophets (including 
the remaining books). This division our Lord Himself recognised, when 
He spoke of “The Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.”—S. 
Luke, xxiv. 44. To explain this fact, of which no account altogether sat- 
isfactory has ever been assigned,’ the Jews have invented the notion of 
three Degrees of Inspiration; of which hypothesis Havernick truly says: 
“This asserted diversity of Inspiration appears, even its definitions, to be 
so vague and so inexact, that one can hardly form any regular conception 
of it. Of Biblical grounds it is wholly deficient :—nay, the New Testa- 
ment rather decides quite against it, from the manner in which it speaks 
of David, Daniel,” το. [cf. e. g. Lecture vi. p. 263, note *.|—Hnletung, 
fb. n Abth.i. 6/672 


1 Hengstenberg, who accepts and defends the Jewish tradition that this “three 
fold division rests upon the different relations in which the authors of the Sacred 
Books stood to God,” attempts to explain, as follows, the obvious difficulty of such a 
position. He is speaking of the place of Daniel among the Hagiographa: “The 
name 8723 was the official title of the Prophets [see supra, Lecture iv. p. 158, and 
infra, Appendix J]; and the more ancient and more general meaning (Gen. xx. 7) 
received, in the Theocracy, a closer limitation, and appears only once in poetry 
(Psalm cy. 15), and this, too, applied to those who lived before the age of Theocratic 
Prophecy. On the supposition that all the authors of Scripture could be called o>~23, 
it remains inexplicable why the Books of Ruth and Kzra, which were generally re- 
ceived, and which were extant at the time of the second collection, were not admitted 
into it. This fact proves, that in separating the historical books into two divisions, 
they were guided by definite reasons. It remains inexplicable why they parted the 
Lamentations of Jeremiah from his Predictions, and took them into the third collec- 
tion. The reason of which can be nothing else than the opinion that the Divine 
influenee which the author received in this Book—bearing as it does a character pre- 
dominantly subjective—was not the same as in his Predictions, * * * In deter- 
mining the second division the collectors could not possibly receive Daniel into it. 
He had not (like the other prophets in Palestine, and Ezeixiel in the Exile) labored 
among his own people as a Prophet.”—Die Authentie des Daniels, s. 25 ff. Havernick 
truly observes with respect to this attempt to solve the problem: “ Kinen neuen 
Erklarungsversuch macht Dr. Hengstenberg; doch, wie es scheint, auch nicht 
geniigend.”— Comm. iib das B. Daniel, Hinleit. s. xl. 

2 Hiivernick observes, in his introduction to the Book of Daniel (s. xxxix.):— 
“The motives which floated before the collectors of the Canon, in their threefold 
division of it, are, for the most part, altogether unknown to us; and the knowledge 
of the reasons which influenced them seems to have been lost at a very early period. 
Josephus is altogether silent on the subject. Jerome notes the position of our Book 
[Daniel] as being something remarkable, but can give no explanation of it. Theo- 
doret makes it a matter of reproach to the Jews, that they have placed Daniel in this 
[third] division.” And yet, in his “ Hinleitung,” he accepts, with some modifications, 
the explanation proposed by Hengstenberg,—observing, however:—“ There is no dis- 
tinction between the Inspiration of the Prophets, and the writers of the Hagiographa ; 
any distinction that exists consists merely in the peculiar Thevcratic position of the 
authors” (s. 65). Thus it is easy to understand why the Books of Moses formed by 
themselves a distinct class. The Books composed by those who were officially 
Prophets were placed in a second division: the third consisting of “the remaining’ 
Books,—as they are called in the Prologue to the Book of Keclesiasticus (τοῦ νόμου 


APPENDIX 6. 403 


Let us see, however, what Maimonides says on this subject. This 
learned Rabbi was born at Corduba in Spain, A.D. 1131. He was the 
pupil, Brucker tells us (“ Hist. Phil.” vol. ii. p. 857), according to L. Afri- 
canus, of Ibnu Thophail, Ibnu Saig, and Averroes, the Arabians. Hence 
his knowledge of the writings of Aristotle, of whom Averroes was the 
ardent disciple; and hence also the justice of Havernick’s remark as to 
the source of his notion respecting the “degrees” of Inspiration (See Lec- 
ture ii. p. 62, note’). The Jews say of him, “A Mose ad Mosen, non sur- 
rexit sicut Moses.’ In accordance with the general opinion of his nation, 
he held that a supereminent degree of Inspiration must be ascribed to 
Moses, who is to be distinguished from all other prophets by four peculiar 
characteristics :— 

(1) “All the other prophets saw the prophecy in a dream or in a 
vision; but our Rabbi Moses saw it whilst he was awake.” (2) “To all 
the other prophets it was revealed through the medium of an angel, and 
therefore they saw that which they saw in an allegory or enigma, but to 
Moses it is said, ‘ With him [ will speak mouth to mouth’ (n> me, Num. 
xii. 8); and ‘face to face” (8 35- δὲ 8555, Ex. χχχῆϊ, 11). (3) “ All the 
other prophets were verrified, but with Moses it was not so; and this is 
what the Scripture says: ‘As a man speaketh unto his friend’” (Ex. 
xxxiii. 11), (4) All the other prophets could not prophesy at any time 
that they wished: but with Moses it was not so; but at any time when 
he wished for it, the Holy Spirit came upon him; so that it was not ne- 
cessary for him to prepare his mind, for he was always ready for it, like 
the ministering angels” (mawn 538} 8)3).--- Yad Hachazakah, ὁ. vii. (Ber- 
nard’s transl. p. 116.) With special reference to this superiority of 
Moses, Maimonides proceeds in his other great work, the “ Moreh Nebo- 
chim,” to lay down eleven distinct “Degrees of Prophecy,” from which 
Abarbanel has deduced the modern Jewish notion as to the three “ Degrees 
of Inspiration” under which the Old Testament was written :°— 


καὶ TOV προφητῶν, καὶ τῶν GAAWwWY,—or, ὁ Νόμος, καὶ ai προφητεῖαι, καὶ τὰ 
λοίπα τῶν βιβλίων). Daniel was placed in this last class, merely because he 
does not appear to have been a N73, but simply a mm (see Appendix J). The Book 
of Lamentations Havernick admits to present an exception to this rule: but he thinks 
that, from its character as a collection of poetical dirges, it was placed among the 
Hagiographa, just as Psalm xc., which was written by Moses, was also included in the 
third division. 

1 T have suggested (supra, Lecture iii. p. 128) what appears to be the true mean- 
ing of the remarkable prerogatives ascribed to Moses in these passages; and have 
also drawn attention (Lecture i. p. 41) to the wnimportance of such prerogatives, as 
bearing upon the Inspiration of Scripture. 

? The younger Buxtorf has translated “15. Abarbenelis [nat. A. D. 1437] aliquot 
Dissertationes” (Basil. 1662); of which the eighth (p. 496), taken from the preface to 
his Commentary on Joshua, commences thus: ‘‘ Quzeritur quare veteres Libros sacros 
diviserint in Legem, Prophetas, et Hagiographa, et que sit harum trium appellationum 
ratio?” One only of our wise men, says Abarbanel, has alluded to this question, 
Ephodeus, who attempts to explain it from the analogy of the three divisions of’ the 
Sanctuary; but this does not meet the difficulty. ‘‘ Mihi ergo videtur sapientes nos- 
tros voluisse nominibus istis monere de perfectione singularum harum partium, et 
gradu supremo quo unaqueque alteran superat.” The superiority of the Thorah con- 
sists in its being the Law of God. As to the other two divisions, in the one case the 
authors of the books were prophets; while the authors of the Hagiographa were not 
proph2ts,—‘‘ sed ‘ Loquentes per Spiritum Sanctum,’ unde et iJlorum libri non vocan- 


404 APPENDIX 6. 


I. “Cum quis auxilio Divino ita instructus est et praeditus ut eo mo- 
veatur et animetur, ad magnum et heroicum aliquod facinus perpetrandum. 
Hoe donum vocatur Spiritus Domini. Et hic est gradus Judicum Israelis 
omnium.” II.“Cum homo in se sentit rem vel facultatem quampiam 
exoriri et super se quiescere, quae eum impellit ad loquendum vel de scien- 
tiis et artibus, vel Psalmos et Hymnos. Et hic est de quo dicitur, quod 
loquatur per Spiritum Sanctum. Hac specie Spiritus Sancti instinctus, 
Psalmos suos scripsit David; Proverbia, Ecclesiasten, et Cant. Canticorum, 
Salomon. Hoe afflatu scripti sunt Danielis, Jobi, et Chronicorum Libri, 
et reliqua Hagiographa, unde etiam Kethubim appellantur, quia scripta 
sunt per Spiritum Sanctum. De libello Esther palam dicunt sapientes 
nostri: ‘ Libellus Esther per Spiritum Sanctum dictatus est?” [“ Primus et 
secundus sunt gradus ad Prophetiam, unde ii, qui ad duos illos gradus 
pervenerunt, non numerantur inter prophetas illos, de quibus egimus hac- 
tenus” (p. 315).] ILL “Qui est primus Prophetize vera, est eorum qui 
dicunt : ‘ Et ἔπι verbum Domini ad me.” IV. “Cum Propheta verbum 
aliquod clare et distincte audit in somnio Prophetiz, sed non videt loquen- 
tem 1Ππ4. V. “ Quando Vir aliquis in somnio loquitur cum propheta.” 
VI. “Quando Angelus cum ipso loquitur in somnio.” VII. “Cum Pro- 
pheta existimat Deum secum loqui in somnio.” VIII. “ Cum offertur ipsi 
Visio in Visione prophetica, et cum Parabolas videt.” IX. “Quando au- 
dit verba in Visione.” X. “Quando videt Virum secum loquentem in 
Visione.” XI. “ Quando videt Angelum loquentem secum in Visione.”— 
Pars ii. cap. 45 (Buxtorf’s transl. p. 316, &e.). 

By virtue of the principle, “Omnis sermo qui auditur, quocunque 
etiam modo id fiat, in Somnzo auditur,’ Maimonides reduces these degrees 
to ewght (“Nam si falsum sit, in Viscone audiri sermonem, concident tres 
ultima gradus.”—LIbid. p. 321. 

To this source, therefore, may at once be traced the modern theory of 
various “ degrees” of Inspiration. An example of such a theory has been 
given in Lecture 1, p. 34, note*; where the obvious objection to which the 
entire view is obnoxious has also been stated,—not to mention the fact 
that the opinion is, at the most, a mere hypothesis, without the slightest 
warrant in Scripture. Nor are the writers who maintain the theory even 
agreed as to the number ot these “degrees.” Thus Doddridge, in his 
“ Dissertation on Inspiration” (Works, vol. v. p. 346)—from whom Dr. 
Dick (“ Lectures on Theology,” vol i. p. 195, &c.) does not materially dif- 
fer—omits,’ trom the four “degrees” usually defined as I have given 
them in the place cited, the “degree” denominated “the Inspiration of 
Direction” On the other hand, Dr. Henderson, in his “Lectures on In- 
spiration,” (p. 864, &c.) lays down five “degrees:” viz. (1) A Divine 
Excitement ; (2) An Invigoration (usually called Elevation) ; (3) Super- 
mtendence ; (4) Guidance ; (5) Direct Revelation. Among the advocates 


tur prophetiz.” The books, written by those “qui locuti sunt per Spiritum Sane: 
tum, vocarunt, D°21ND, scripta, Hagiographa * * * a@ gradu quem habuerunt 
ratione influentie Divine in illis; hoc est, quia gradus scriptorum illorum non fuit 
quod yiderint formas propheticas, nee quod audiverint verba Dei Vivi, sed quod fuerint 
in gradu Spiritus Sancti:”—for an account of which influence he appeals to the “‘ More 
Nebochim” of Maimonides, pars ii. cap. 45. 

* Doddridge (doc. cit. p. 347, note), expressly refers to the authority of Maimonides, 
and this may account for his reducing the number of “degrees” to three. 


APPENDIX 6. 405 


of this theory is to be reckoned Professor J. Τὶ Beck of Basle, a writer to 
whose treatise, entitled “ Einleitung in das System der christ]. Lehre ; oder 
propadeutische Entwicklung der christl. Lehr-Wissenschaft,” I have al- 
ready acknowledged my many obligations. According to this view the 
Old and New Testaments each exhibit three ‘degrees’ of Inspiration, The 
‘degrees of Theopneustia’ in the New Testament are as follows :—(1) 
“The pisteo-dynamical: or the concentration of the universal spirit of 
Christian faith in particular organs, distinguished by the power of faith, 
for the authentic reproduction of doctrine and history already revealed.” 
To this ‘degree’ belong the Gospels of 5. Mark and S. Luke, and the 
Acts; and with this influence the Deacons and some others, e. g. S. Bar- 
nabas, were endowed :—cf. Acts, vi.—vili.; xi. 22-26; 1 Tim. iii. 9. (2) 
“The charismatical: or the distribution of the miraculous power of the 
Spirit in extraordinary gifts, extending to ecstasy.” This ‘degree’ dis- 
tributed over the first community of believers (Rom. xii. 5 ff; 1 Cor, xi. 
4, 7), unites itself to the first ‘degree of Theopneustia’ “according to its 
more spontaneous side, γνῶσις and σοφία ; while its more receptive side, 
ἀποκάλυψις and προφητεία, joins on to the third degree of Theopneustia :” 
—(3) “ The apocalyptic,” which was combined with the two former, in the 
persons of the Apostles :—men called and set apart for the work, in order 
to transmit to all the world, by means of written documents, the announce- 
ment of the mystery of God :—cf. Rom. i. 1; Eph. ii. 2-10; Col. 1. 25- 
29. The “degrees of Theopneustia” in the Old Testament are :—(1) 
“ Where, in order to present with fidelity the Revelation which had al- 
ready become positive in history and doctrine, there was need of certain 
organs in which the general covenant-spirit was energetically concentrated.” 
Lt is difficult to point out what books belong to this ‘degree ;’ there are, 
perhaps, few in which the second does not enter. (2) “The Spirit of special 
lumination, where, by the moulding energy of the Spirit, a certain virtu- 
osity (Virtuositat) appears developed for the further dissemination of truth 
revealed in doctrine and history :—such are most of the Psalms.” Here also 
there is a transition to the third ‘degree,’ (8) which “combines and per- 
fects both the former ‘degrees’ in the spirit of the progressive Revelation.” 
Thus the prophets wrote of history, and of doctrine, whether relating to 
the past, the present, or the future; and the Pentateuch “appears as a 
combination of the entire spiritual activity of the Old Testament.”—§ 90- 
96, s. 235 ff. 

Ill. We now come to the third class of modern theories of Inspira- 
tion, of which Schleiermacher may be taken to be the representative, and 
the opinions of whose school have been discussed, Lecture iti. p. 100, &e.; 
Lecture v. p. 219; Lecture vi. p. 253; and Lecture vii. p. 326, &. Ac- 
cording to this school, “The idea of Inspiration is of quite subordinate 
importance in Christianity ;” the statements of the sacred writers being 
in fact nothing more than the results of the natural faculties of the humap 
mind, exercised in reflecting upon the revelation exhibited in the Person 
of Christ (see Lecture vi. p. 253, note *). The connexion of this system 
with Judaism is remarkable. 

There are three opinions, writes Maimonides, as to Prophecy. “‘ Ima. 
Sententia est vulgi et imperite multitudinis quod Deus Opt. Max. aliquem 
ex hominibus, qui ipsi placuerit, eligat eumque mittat, nulla habita ratione, 


406 APPENDIX 6. 


an sit sapiens et eruditus, an vero indoctus et imperitus, senex an juvenis! 
Tantum hoe requirunt, ut sit vir probus, bonus, honestus.” 

“ 2da. Sententia est sententia Philosophorum, qui dicunt : Prophetiam 
esse perfectionem quand: un in natura hominis. Hance autem perfectionem, 
dicunt, neminem adipisci, nisi studio, industria, et diligentia, que id quod 
in potentia speciel inest, In actum educat : nisi impediatur vel ab impedi- 
mento aliquo interno proveniente a temperamento hominis: 7 eee 
Juxta hance opinionem fieri non potest, si quis idoneus sit ad Prophetiam, 
et prout decet se ad illam preeparaverit, wt actu ipso non prophetet.” 

“ 8118. Sententia est Legis nostra. Fundamentum enim Legis nostre 
plane cum sententia Philosophorum convenit, unica tantum re excepta, hac 
videlicet, quod credimus fieri posse, ut quis sit idoneus ad Prophetiam, et 
se ad illam decenter preeparet, et tamen non prophetet, propter voluntatem 
et beneplacitum Divinum. Meo itaque judicio res hic se habet sicut in 
Miraculis. Ratio enim naturalis postulat, ut qui a natura sua idoneus est 
ad Prophetiam, prophetare deberet : qui autem id non potest facere, similis 
est el, qui nequit movere manum suam, sicut Jeroboam. Hundamentum 
namque hujus rei et precipuum, quod nos quoque requirimus, est dispositio 
vel dexteritas naturalis, et perfectio tam in moribus et qualitatibus externis, 
quam in rationalibus et intellectualibus.”"—Moreh Mebochim, Pars τι. cap. 
xxxli. (Buxtorf’s transl. p. 284.) 

The chief element among the natural faculties from which Prophecy is 
ee said to result, viz. the “ intellectus agens,” has been borrowed from 

he Peripatetics. As the learned John Smith (of Cambridge) explains 
the language of Maimonides, “The true essence of Prophecy is nothing 
else but an influence from the Deity upon the rationa/ first, and afterwards 
the imaginative faculty by the mediation of the active intellect,”—(“ On 
Prophecy,” ch. ii.) And this doctrine Maimonides proceeds to apply as 
follows :— 

“ Si influentia ista intellectualis influat in facultatem rationalem solum 
nihilque in facultatem imaginatricem destillet, inde oriri sectam sapientum, 
speculatorum seu theoricorum. Quando vero influentia illa in utramque 
facultatem, rationalem nempe et imaginativam, easque ab illarum creatione 
in summo gradu perfectas influit, exinde fit secta prophetarum. Quando 


1 It should be added here that Abarbanel rejects this theory of Maimonides :— 
“Mens mihi hoc loci non est, de preparatione loquenti, istas dispositiones preedicare, 
quas vel ex naturdé homo possederit vel acquisiverit studio, uti factum R. Maimonidi, 
dum vias recenset per quas ad Prophetiam necessario perveniatur ; nam illis (uti Legis 
nos scientia docet) nulla necessitas adest, conferens ipsam Prophetiam. Verum enim 
vero preeparationes seu dispositiones hz plurimum valent, &e.”—Comm. in xii. Proph. 
Min., Preef. (Husen’s trausl. p. 16). 

2 “Veritas et quidditas Prophetize nihil aliud est, quam influentia, a Deo Opt. 
Max., mediante intellectu agente, super facultatem rationalem primo, deinde super 
facultatem imaginatricem influens.” It is not to be found in every one, no matter 
what his other perfections may be, “nisi simul conjuncta sit summa facultatis imagi- 
natricis, inde ab ipsa hora nativitatis, perfectio.”” * * * ‘Has autem tres per. 
fectiones quod attinet:—perfectionem videlicet facultatis rationalis in studendo; per 
fectionem facultatis imaginatricis in nativitate; et perfectionem morum seu qualitatum 
in puritate cogitationum * * * has inquam quod attinet, notum est magnam 
earum inter perfectos esse differentiam et preecellentiam. Et secundum illam diffe- 
rentiam distincti quoque sunt prophetarum gradus.’—WMor. Neb. Ibid. c. xxxvi, 
p. 292, &e. 


APPENDIX 6. 407 


denique influentia illa influit solum in facultatem imaginatricem ; et in fac- 
ultate rationali imperfectio aliqua existit, exsurgit inde secta Politicorum, 
Jurisperitorum, Legislatorum, Divinatorum, Incantatorum, Somniatorum 
et Prestigiatorum.”—Ibid. cap. xxxvii. p. 296. “It is needless to remark,” 
writes Rudelbach, “that this psychical founding of Prophecy, according 
to which the leading idea is the ‘ natural disposition, in no sense comes up 
to the idea of the ‘Servant of God,’ which, according to Holy Scripture, 
is common to all prophets; still less to the idea of ‘the word of God’ 
which called them, prepared them, and was the principle of their life. It 
is, perhaps, worth observing that one of the latest dogmatic writers is quite 
in accord with the Jewish teachers as to this fundamental view. Schileier- 
macher does not even conceal his belief ‘that the idea of Inspiration ap 
pears, in this same sense, in every pious community which has a scriptural 
basis ; nay, even in the origin of civil government. ”—Zeitschrift, 1840, H. 
i.s.51. And again: having referred to Spinoza as confessedly the leadei 
of all modern opposition to Inspiration; and having quoted his principle, 
—“Merito mentis naturam, quatenus talis concipitur. promam Divine 
Revelationis causam statuere possumus” (Z'ract. Theol., Pol. cap. i.), bor- 
rowed from Maimonides,—which refers Revelation to merely natural 
causes, he observes that such opinions “ deserve attention were it merely 
to recall to mind the essential elements of the system canonized by the 
modern pantheists.” On which he notes : “It is well known that Schleier- 
macher, in his ‘Discourses concerning Religion’ (3rd edit., 1821), hae 
completed the apotheosis of Spinoza; but certainly in a heathenish man 
ner, by sacrificing on his grave a lock of his hair (indem er eine Locke 
opfert an seinem Grabe).”—Loc. cit., H. ii. s, 48. 

It is needless to refer, with any greater particularity, to the numerous 
varieties of opinion into which the theories of Inspiration, which have 
been now considered, may be subidivided. Nor, with respect to the dis- 
tinction between Revelation and Inspiration, is it necessary to add anything 
to what has been already said in the foregoing pages. It has, however, 
been observed (Lecture i. p. 40, note ') that Origen noticed this distine- 
tion. The occasion on which he has done so is the following :—He had 
just applied to the Law of Moses the title of mpwroyévynua of Scripture ; 
and to the Gospels that of ἀπαρχή; the meaning of which terms he thus 
explains: μὲ τ & yap τοὺς πάντας καρποὺς ἀναφέρεται ἡ ἀπαρχή" πρὸ δὲ 
πάντων τὸ προτογέννημα---πὰ he goes on to anticipate the objection, 
that as the Acts and the Epistles were disseminated after the Gospels, his 
use of the word dap y7 is objectionable, To which he replies :— 
Λεκτέον ἤτοι νοῦν εἷναι σοφῶν ἐν Χριστῷ, ὠφελημένων [μὲν] ἐν ταῖς 
φερομέναις ἐπιστολαῖς, δεομένων [δὲ] ἵνα πιστεύωνται μαρτυριῶν τῶν 
ἐν τοῖς νομικοῖς καὶ προφητητικοῖς λόγοις κειμένων, ὥστε σοφὰ μὲν καὶ 
πιστὰ λέγειν καὶ σφόδρα ἐπιτεταγμένα τὰ ἀποστολικὰ, οὐ μὴν παρα- 


πλήσια τῷ - τάδε λέγει Κύριος Παντοκράτωρ: καὶ κατὰ τοῦτο ἐπίστησον « 
εἰ ἐπὰν λέγῃ ὃ Παῦλος, πάσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος, ἐμπε- © 


ριλαμβάνει καὶ τὰ ἑαυτοῦ γράμματα, ἢ οὐ τό: κἀγὼ λέγω καὶ οὐχ ὃ 
Κύριος, καὶ τό" ἐν πάσαις ἐκκλησίαις διατάσσομαι, καὶ τό" οἷα ἔπαθον 
ἐν ’Avtioyeia, ἐν “Ikoviw, ἐν Λύστροις καὶ τὰ τούτοις παραπλήσια, 
ἐνίοτε ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ γραφέντα καὶ κατ᾽ ἐξουσίαν, οὐ μὴν τὸ eid 
κρινὲς τῶν ἐκ θείας ἐπιπνοίας Adywr.—Comm. in Jonann., t. iv. p. 4. 


j + 


CK a 


ΤᾺ 
Vi 


AL Lge 


408 APPENDIX D. 


Here it is clear that the distinction is drawn not between one portion 
of Scripture which is inspired, and another portion which is not inspired ; 
but between words which had been uttered by “the Lord Almighty” 
(2 Cor. vi. 18), and those which were spoken in the persons of the sacred 
writers themselves (observe that in each of the three quotations S. Paul 
speaks in the first person) :—both classes of passages having been written 
under “ Divine Inspiration,” but the former being, as it were, “ unmixed” 
with human agency. And, on this principle, he goes on to consider §. 
John’s to be the ἀπαρχή of the Gospels. Cf. Cassiodorus, “ In Psalter” 
cap. 1., t. li. p. 3; and S. Basil,’ “ Adv. Eunom.” lib. v., t. 1. p. 819, who 
refers to 1 Cor. vii. (cf. Lecture vi. p. 272, &). 


APPENDIX D. 
THE “ LOST” BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, 


Lecture I].—Pace 55. 


WE meet with frequent reference in the Old Testament to a class of 
writings devotional and historical—writings, too, in many cases composed 
by the authors of inspired books,—which were never received into the 
Canon of Scripture. Of such compositions, some (1) are quoted to a 
greater or less extent in different parts of the Old Testament ; or, without 
any express quotation, are alluded to as being extant; while others (2) 
are plainly spoken of as the sources from which the sacred writers de- 
rived, in certain cases, their information as to historical facts. (Cf. Lecture 
vii. p. 296, note *.) 

(1) “The Book of the wars of Jehovah,” quoted Numbers, xxi. 14, 
15, appears to have been one of the earliest instances of a collection of the 
popular lyrical poetry of the Hebrews (cf. Lecture iv. p. 160, note *) ; 
and the hymn, quoted in the same chapter (vv. 17, 18), seems to have 
been also taken from that collection In such poetical pieces was re-echoed 
the impression which the Lord’s dealings with His people were fitted to 
produce ; and from them was reflected the spirit of the Pentateuch, where 
Jehovah is represented fighting for Israel, as “ἃ Man of war,” Exod. xv. 
3; cf. xiv. 14, 25. To this collection may, perhaps, also be referred the 
prophetic sayings (otherwise forming a distinct work) which are described 
as having been delivered by them “that speak in proverbs” (Num, xxi. 


1 Melchior Canus, who, so far as I am aware, was the first to state expressly this 
distinction between Revelation and Inspiration (see supra, p. 40), appears to have in- 
ferred it from these statements of the Fathers. Thus he observes, with reference to 
this passage from S. Basil -—“ Quee sacri auctores scripsere, hee in duplici sunt diffe- 
rentia. Qudam, que supernaturali solum revelatione cognoscebant: et ea Basilius 
tradit a Spiritu Sanct? esse. Alia vero naturali cognitione tenebant, quee scilicet aut 
oculis viderant, aut manibus etiam attrectaverant. Atque heec quidem, ut paulo ante 
diximus, supernaturali lumine et expressa revelatione, ut scriberentur, non egebant, 
sed egebant tamen Spiritus Sancti preesentia et auxilio peculiari, ut licet humana essent, 
et natures ratione cognita, Divinitus tamen sine ullo errore scriberentur. Hec vero 
illa sunt, ques, juxta Basilium, Paulus et Prophetze de suo loquebantur.”—De Locis 
Theolog. lib. ii. ec. Xviii., p. 127. 


APPENDIX D. 409 


17); and with which many of the predictions of the future prophets are 
30 intimately connected (Lect. iv. p. 160, note 7; cf. Lect, vii. p. 298, ἄς.) 
“ By the side of the objective statements of the Pentateuch,” observes 
Hengstenberg, “ proceeded the subjective in ‘the Book of the wars of 
the Lord.’ How they were related to each other, with respect to the 
preceding historical narrative, we perceive from Exod. xv.”—Bettrége, 
iE tl, 5. 290: 

As the “Book of the wars of Jehovah” contained the praises of the 
Lord for the wonders wrought by Hiin for Israel, so, as a continuation, it 
may be, of that collection, but certainly not identical with it, “the Book 
of Jasher” (“the upright,’—-w7 ἜΞΌ, 1. e, of the ideal true Israel), Josh. 
x. 135’ 2 Sam. 1. 18, contained odes in honour of God’s distinguished 
servants. It was so called, perhaps, with a reference to the passages 
where Israel is described as “ Jeshurun” (yw, or mae—Deut. xxxii. 15; 
xxxiil, 5, 26; Numb, xxiii. 10)—see Keil’s continuation of Havernick’s 
“ Einleitung,” 5, 8. 

In 1 Chron, xxviii. 11-19, we read that “ David gave to Solomon the 
pattern of the porch * * ™* and the pattern of all that he had, by 
the Spirit, of the courts of the House of the Lord. * * * Also for 
the courses of the Priests and the Levite. * * * All this, said 
David, the Lord made me understand in writing by His hand upon me, 
even all the works of this pattern.” That this document was the recog- 
nised guide in the ritual worship of the Temple, we learn from the words 
of Josiah to the Priests and Levites: “ Prepare yourselves by the houses 
of your fathers, after your courses, according to the writing of David 
King of Israel, and according to the writing of Solomon his son.”—2 
Chron. xxxv. 4. 

In 1 Kings, iv. 32, we read that Solomon “spake three thousand 
proverbs, and his songs were a thousand and five :” and yet only two of 
his Psalms are in the Canon—viz. Psalm Ixxii. and exxvii. 

It seems clear from 2 Chron. xxxv. 25, that Jeremiah composed a dirge 
on the death of Josiah: “ Jeremiah lamented for Josiah, * * * and 
behold they are written in the Lamentations.”* 

(2) To turn, in the next place, to those prophetical and other writings 
which are appealed to by the authors of the Old Testament, as the sources 
from which their statements have been taken.* The division of the land, 
described by Joshua in the section ch. xiii—xxii., is founded upon a docu- 
ment drawn up by the “three men for each tribe” “ who passed through 
the land, and described it by cities, into seven parts, in a Book (89 - 9)." 
—Josh. xviii. 9. And here a remark may be made, the importance of 


1 It is curious to observe what slender grounds are sufficient for an assault upon 
the integrity of Scripture:—“ It is worthy of remark that the Book of Joshua (x. 13) 
quotes the book of Jasher which must have been written as late as the time of David 
(2 Sam. i. 18). See De Wette, ii. 187.”—Greg, The Creed of Christendom, p. 38. The 
bare mention of the fact that this work consisted of a collectiox of popular poetry,— 
to which, of course, additions were made from time to time,—exposes the weakness 
¥ this cavil. 

* To this class of writings some add ‘‘The manner of the kingdom” which Samuel 
* wrote in a book.”—1 Sam. x. 25. This does not appear, however, to have been a 
aestinct work: see Lecture vii. p. 289, note. 

" For the remarks which follow, ef. Hivernick, “ Hinleitung,” Th. ii. A sth. i 


410 APPENDIX D. 


which will presently appear, that the author of the Books of Chroniclea 
had other sources of information with respect to such facts, than the Book 
of Joshua. Thus the account of the possessions of the Levites in 1 Chron. 
vi. 54-81, differs from that given in Josh, xxi, The progress of time, in- 
deed, must necessarily have rendered the former description inexact: e. g. 
Ziklag (Josh, xix. 5) was assigned to the Tribe of Simeon; but we learn 
from 1 Sam, xxvii, 6, that it afterwards “pertained unto the Kings of 
Judah.” 

The author of the Books of Samuel, on one occasion only (namely, 2 
Sam. i. 18, already noticed) makes express mention of documentary sources. 
The frequent insertion, however, of poetic pieces plainly intimates that 
such sources were at his command :—viz, the Song of Hannah, 1 Sam. ii. 
1-10; the Hymn of Victory, xvii. 6, ὅσο. ; the Lament of David for Saul 
and Jonathan, 2 Sam, i. 17-27, and for Abner, ii, 33, 34; David’s Psalms, 
contained in ¢h.*xxii. and in xxii. 1-7. Hence we may not unfairly form 
a conjecture as to the source of such quotations; and conclude that these 
poetic pieces were selected from the “ Book of Jasher.” We read, too, in 
1 Chron. xxix. 29, that “the acts of David are written in the Book of 
Samuel, and in the Book of Nathan, and in the Book of Gad ;” any or all 
of which may have been the author’s sources :—for it is clear that these 
were distinct works, since the “ Book of Nathan” alone is referred to in 2 
Chron. ix, 29 (“The acts of Solomon, are they not written in the Book of 
Nathan, and in the prophecy of Abhijah, and in the visions of Iddo.”) with- 
out any allusion to the Books of Samuel or Gad. 

The author of the Books of Kings on one occasion appeals to “ the 
Book of the acts of Solomon (mabw "5. Ἴ59)"- --1Ἰ Kings, xi. 41: the 
other sources to which he has referred being “The Book of the Chronicles 
(mya "at we) of the Kings of Judah,” or of “ Israel :’—writings which 
ure quoted thirty-one times up to the history of Jehoiakim, 2 Kings, xxiv. 
5. That a selection only was made from such documents is obvious from 
the use, in all cases, of the phrase “ the rest of (am) the acts,” &c.; while 
it is also plain that our books of Chronicles are not the sources employed. 
The documents in question were the public records of the kingdom, which 
‘he sacred historians of the Hebrews, like other Oriental annalists, were 
accustomed to adduce as their authorities (cf. Ezra, iv. 15; Esther, vi. 1, 
x. 2.) The passage Neh. xii. 23, is conclusive on this point, as has been 

‘already proved, Lecture vil. p. 296, note *. 

That the documents thus made use of were in most, if not all, instances, 
composed by Prophets, will be seen farther on. 

In the Books of Chronicles, with the exception of the section 1 Chron. 
iii. 2,—and even here the facts borrowed are compressed as much as 
possible (cf. i. 24-27, with Gen, xi. 10-26; and i. 32, 33, with Gen. xxv. 
1—4),—the canonical Books of Scripture are not employed as the sources : 
this assertion, however, must be proved. The Books of Chronicles may 
be divided into the following sections :— 

I. The Genealogies, 1 Chron. i-ix.:—(1) The author gives ample in- 
formation as to the authorities to which he refers. He appeals to the 
public register of the Tribes, of which Nehemiah writes :—“I found a 
register of the genealogy (wmom spe) of them which came up at the first, 
and found written therein,” &e.—vii. 5. See 1 Chron, iv. 33; v. 1, 7,17; 


APPENDIX D. 411 


vii. 7,9, 40; ix. 1.’ To the collection of such registers he refers ch. ix. 1; 
and we learn from ch. v. 17, that we are to refer the origin of census-lists 
of this nature to the times of Jotham and Jeroboam II. (2) He does not 
borrow from the other canonical books. This appears, speaking generally 
not only from the absence of any such striking agreement with those 
books, as must have existed had the Chronicler taken them as his sources; 
but also from the additional information which his statements so often sup- 
ply: e.g. 1 Chron. ii. 18-17 (cf. 1 Sam. xvi. 6, ὅσο.) ; 11. 20-24; iv. 1- 
23; v. 16-34." But this feature of the case must be examined somewhat 
more particularly, namely,—Has the author, or has he not, made use of 
the Books οἵ Samuel and the Books of Kings? a question with which the 
present inquiry, as to the existence of a distinct branch of Hebrew litera- 
ture is essentially connected. The reply to this question will inform us of 
the authorivies from which the Chronicler has actually derived his facts. 

Il. In the section 1 Chron, x.—xxix., which contains’ the history of 
David, the sources appear to have been (1) works written by early pro- 
phets, and contemporaneous with the events which they record; together 
with (2) a book of later date, compiled from the annals which the author 
had employed in the opening chapters. (1) The account of David’s reign 
closes with the words: “ Now the acts of David the King, first and last, 
behold, they are written in the book of Samuel the Seer, and in the Book 
of Nathan the Prophet, and in the Book of Gad the Seer’—1 Chron, 
xxix. 29 :—we have already seen that these were separate, independent 
works. 

(2) The lists of David’s heroes (ch, xi. 10, &c.), and of those who 
came to him to Ziklag (ch. xii. 1-22); the information as to the Levites 
(ch. xv. 17, &c.), and as to Divine worship (ch. xxii. xxvi); &c. &c.—all 
such statements point to the use of a document analogous to those em- 
ployed in the opening chapters. But we are also informed of the exact 
nature of this document. We read, “The Levites were numbered from 
the age -of thirty years and upward. * * * By the last words of 
David the Levites were numbered from twenty years old and above.”—1 
Chron. xxiii. 3, 27: we are told, moreover, that its author, “ Shemaiah the 
son of Nethaneel the scribe, one of the Levites, wrote them before the 
King and the Princes, &c.”’—xxiv. 6. To this document the reader is 
more than once referred for special information, when the Chronicler 
speaks of classes of persons who were “ expressed by name”—(cf. xii. 31, 
xvi. 41); its nature being more explicitly declared in the statement :— 
“Joab began to number, but he finished not, because there fell wrath for 
it against Israel; neither was the number put in the account of the Chron- 
icles of King David.”—xxvii, 24. 

Ill. In 2 Chron. i—ix. is contained the history of Solomon. We have 


1 The facts borrowed from these documents often afford occasion for explanatory 
remarks :—e. g. on the transfer of Reuben’s Birthright to the sons of Joseph— 
ch. v. 1. 

2 One example may be given of the light which the Books of Chronicles cast upon 
other obscure portions of Scripture. 1 Chronicles, iv. 23, we read: “These were the 
potters, and those that dwelt among plants and hedges: there they dwelt with the 
king for his work.” ‘Thus we learn that there was a well-known family of potters, of 
the tribe of Judah, set apart to labor for the kings. To these the passages, Jer. xviii 
1, 2; xix. 1, 2; Zech. xi. 13, evidently refer. 


412 APPENDIX D. 


seen to what source the author of the Books of Kings referred on this 
subject (1 Kings, xi. 41); but here other authorities are adduced: “The 
rest. of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the 
Book of Nathan the Prophet, and in the Prophecy of Ahijah the Shilon- 
ite, and in the Visions of Iddo the Seer against Jeroboam the son of Ne- 
bat”—2 Chron. ix. 29:—the silence of the Books of Kings with respect 
to any “Vision of Iddo against Jeroboam,” proving that the Chronicler 
does not refer to them. 

IV. In the Section 2 Chron. x.-xxxvi., which contains the succeeding 
history of the kingdom of Judah, the document most frequently quoted is 
“the Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel”—(xvi. 113 xxv. 26; xxvii. 
7; xxviii, 26; xxxil. 32; xxxv. 27; xxxvi. 8). In xx. 34 we meet with 
“the Book (sep) of the Kings of Israel ;” and in xxxili. 18 “the »39 of 
the Kings of Israel”—which latter work, however, was clearly not confined 
to the Ten Tribes, as it contained the history of Manasseh. These docu- 
ments are not the Books of Kings. .This is proved by the fact that, in 
many instances, the Books of Kings do not contain the information for 
which the Chronicler refers to his sources:—e. g. 2 Chron. xxvii. 7; 
xxxili. 18. From considering the nature of his references it will appear 
that the Chronicler has borrowed here from three separate authorities :— 
(1) From a distinct compilation, which contained genealogical details (cf. 
xxxi. 16, &e.), and also writings composed by prophets—e. g.: “The rest 
of the acts of Jehoshaphat are written in the Book of Jehu, the son of 
Hanani”—xx. 34 (Jehu is called a prophet, 1 Kings, xvi. 7); and, again: 
—“The rest of the acts of Hezekiah are written in the Vision of Isaiah 
the Prophet, the son of Amoz, in the Book of the Kings of Judah and 
Israel”—xxxii. 32. That the different elements thus referred to formed 
one compilation is confirmed by the title given in ch. xxiv. 27,’ to the 
work which the Chronicler had before him, viz. “ the Story [or Commen- 
tary| of the Book of the Kings (p»sbem apo wate),”—i. 6. an historical 
commentary or accurate account of Jewish history, gathered out of the 
writings of the prophets; a sense which is further confirmed by the pas- 
sage: “The rest of the acts of Ahijah are written in the Story or Com- 
mentary (ama) of the prophet Iddo.”—xii, 22. The other element of 
this compilation is referred to in the words: “The acts of Rehoboam, are 
they not written in the book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the 
Seer, concerning genealogies ?”—xii. 15. 

(2) The second authority referred to is expressly distinguished from 
the compilation just spoken of in the following manner. We read: “The 
rest of the acts of Manasseh, and his prayer unto his God, and the words 
of the Seers [cf. ver. 10 and 2 Kings, xxi. 10, &c.] that spake to him in 
the name of the Lord God of Israel, behold they are written in the book 
(words) of the Kings of Israel.”—xxxi. 18. But in ver. 19, the Chron- 


1 “Now concerning his [Joash] sons, and the greatness of the burdens laid upon 
him (>> Nw 371), and the repairing of the house of God, behold they are written 
in the story of the Book of the Kings”—where, as Havernick suggests, in place of the 
words in Italics, we should read ‘‘the number of the prophetic denunciations against 
Joash” (see Lecture iv. p. 163, note, on Nw7)—spoken of in ver. 19. The different 
subjects which this passage embraces show how the whole compilation could 
receive the name of w7772,—“Commentary,” or “ Prophetical illustrations of His- 
tory.” 


APPENDIX D. 413 


teler proceeds: “ His prayer also, and how God was entreated of him, ἄτα, 
behold they are written among the sayings of the Seers :” or,—as the 
margin correctly renders—‘“ the sayings of Hosai ("Ὁ 1,51) :” in which 
words the writer clearly refers to a distinct document. 

(3) Isaiah’s biography of Uzziah: “The rest of the acts of Uzziah, 
first and last, did Isaiah the Prophet, the son of Amoz, write”’—xxvi. 22 ; 
but which work was not, like Isaiah’s history of Hezekiah, inserted in the 
“ Book of the Kings.”—xxxii. 32. 

Here, then, may be repeated the questions already proposed in Lecture 
ii. p. 55 :—Why do we not find in the Old Testament Canon the docu- 
ments which have been enumerated in the preceding remarks? And 
again :—Why do we not find placed on a par with the inspired writings, 
such works as the Book of Ecclesiasticus, and the other components of 
the Apocrypha, which, it is on all hands admitted, the Jewish Church 
never received as Canonical? Ouly one answer, I conceive, can be given 
io such questions, viz.: “That the collection of Sacred Books was defined 
under the Divine guidance, and closed at the Divine command” (see 
supra, p. 61). 

It is unnecessary to enter here upon the modern phase of the question 
relating to the Apocrypha. Suffice it to say, that the Community which 
has exalted these writings to the dignity of Canonical Scripture, has, 
nevertheless, been compelled to place them in a lower rank than the 
Books acknowledged by all to be inspired. How a member of the Church 
of Rome can draw such a distinction, consistently with the Tridentine De 
crees, it is needless to inquire: the agreement, however, of both Roman 
Catholics and Lutherans in their estimate of the Apocrypha is remark- 
able ;—one party ..esiring to ewalt the Apocrypha, the other to dower the 
authority of portions of the New Testament. Perrone—having quoted 
the Canon of Trent (Sess. iv.), in which both the Canonical and Apoc- 
ryphal Books of the Old Testament are enumerated, and which concludes 
with these words: “Si quis libros ipsos cum omnibus suis partibus, prout 
in Ecclesia Catholica legi consueverunt, et in veteri Vulgata Editione ha- 
bentur pro Sacris et Canonicis non susceperit * * * anathema sit” 
—proceeds to say: “Ex his porro tum Veteris tum Novi Test. libris alii 
dicuntur ‘ proto-canonici,’ alii ‘ deutero-canonici? * * * Libri ‘ proto 
canonici’ Vet. Test., auctore Josepho Flavio, xxii. sunt; nempe omnes env- 
merati preter Baruch, Tobiam, Judith, Sapientiam, Kcclesiasticum, ac 
duos Machabzorum, gui serius in Canonem ab Keclesia relati sunt, 
adeoque ‘deutero-canonici’ nuncupati. Libri ‘ proto-canonici’ N. T., sunt 
patiter omnes recensiti, exceptis Hpistola B. Pauli ad Hebreos,2 Ep. 
B. Petri, duabus posterioribus S, Joannis, Hp. S. Jacobi, item Ep. S. 
Jude, et Apocalypsi B. Joannis : ut nonnullas quorumdam librorum partes 
omittamus,” (viz.: “quod attinet ad V. T., sunt hymnus trium puerorum, 
Dan. iii. 24-90; historia Susanne, cap. xiii; ac destructio Beli et Dra- 
conis, cap. xiv.; septem postrema capita I.bri Esther, nempe a cap. x. 4 et 
xvi. 24. Quod vero spectat ad libros N. T., sunt (1) posteriores versiculi 
cap. xvi. S. Marci, nempe a ver. 9 ad finem; (2) historia sudoris Christi 
sanguinei que legitur ap. S. Lucam cap. xxii. 43, 44 ; (3) historia muliris 
adulteree Joan, vill, 2-12”)—Prelect Theol., t. ii. pars 2, p. 12. 

Tholuck accepts this statement as follows: “ Auf diese Weise bildeta 


414 APPENDIX D. 


sich auch unter den neutestamentlichen Schriften, wie unter den alttesta- 
mentlichen, der Unterschied aus zwischen kanonischen im engeren Sinne, 
und apokryphischen. Diesen letzteren Namen gebraucht Hieronymus 
geradezu von den Antilegomenen, und bezeichnet sie dadurch als solche, 
‘que Ecclesia legit ad eedificationem plebis,” welche aber die Kirche nicht 
gebraucht ‘ad auctoritatem ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam.’ 
Hben dieser Unterschied der neutestamentlichen Schriften ist nun auch 
von der lutherischen Kirche angenommen worden, welche ebenso im N. 
T., wie die katholische im A, T., ‘libri proto-canonici,’ und ‘ deutero-canon- 
ic’ unterscheidet.”—Der Br. an die Hebr., EKinleitung, kap. vi., s. 86. 

In concluding this subject an observation must be made with reference 
to the remark of Hue, quoted p- 59, note *, to the effect that the primitive 
practice of publicly reading i in the Christian assemblies the Books of the 
New Testament was the mark of distinction by which the Church formally 
declared its belief in their inspired authority. When such an argument 
is employed, we are of course to understand the practice of the Church, 
en general, as that to which the appeal is made: for it is well known that 
there were some exceptions to this principle. When it can be proved, 
however, that the use, in public worship, of any books which were not in- 
spired was, at the utmost, only partial ; and that, in the most remarkable 
case, such use can be at once accounted for from local causes; the argu- 
ment for the inspiration of the Canonical Books only which is founded 
upon the general practice of the Church, is strengthened rather than di- 
minished by the knowledge of such exceptions. Thus the Epistle of S. 
Clement of Rome, written in the name of the Roman Church to the Church 
of Corinth, was occasioned by a division which had arisen among the 
members of the latter, and which was healed by the wise admonitions of 
S. Clement. What more natural than that the Church of Corinth should 
continue publicly to read a document with which its history was so closely 
connected? Accordingly, S. Dionysius, bishop of Corinth (cere. A.D. 170), 
wrote to Soter, bishop of Rome, informing him, among other matters, 
that it had been the practice of his Church, from the first, to read this 
Epistle. As Eusebius interprets his meaning :---τῆς Κλήμεντος πρὸς 
Κορινθίους μέμνηται ἐπιστολῆς, δηλῶν ἀνέκαθεν ἐξ ἀρχαίου ἔθους ἐπὶ 
τῆς ἐκκλησίας τὴν ἀνάγνωσιν αὐτῆς ποιεῖσθαι .---- Hist. Hecl. iv. c. 28, p. 
187. Considering the person by whom this Epistle had been written, we 
should rather feel surprise that the practice had not become universal (see 
supra, p. 57, &c.); but that it had not, we again learn from Eusebius, 
who, when desiring himself to express the great estimation in which §, 
Clement’s Epistle was held, can say no more than that it was read ἐν 
πλείσταις ἐκκλησίαις (H. E,, iii. ο. 16, p. 108). The “Shepherd of 
Hermas,” too, was held in the greatest veneration by so high an authority 
as 8. Ireneus (cf. 6. g. “Cont. Heer.,” lib. rv. ὁ. xx. p. 253); and yet, the 
“Fragment of Muratori” expressly mentions it as a book which was not 
publicly read as Scripture :—see supra, p. 57, note. It is thus referred to 
by S. Athanasius:—év δὲ τῷ Ποιμένι γέγραπται: ἐπειδὴ καὶ τοῦτο 
καίτοι μὴ ὃν ἐκ τοῦ κανόνος προφέρουσι: πρῶτον kK. τ. λ.---- 
De Deer. Nic. Syn., t.i. p. 223.2 The case of the Epistle of 5. Barnabas 
has been considered already, p. 57, note * 


? Bishop Be7eridge’s assertion, therefore, as to the universal practice of reading 


APPENDIX Ε. 415 


APPENDIX E. 


THE EPISTLE OF 8. BARNABAS, 


(Lecture Il—Page 58.) 


Our information, as to the personal history of 5. Barnabas," is very 
seanty. According to Acts, iv. 36, he was a “Levite of the country of 
Cyprus.” Clemens Al. (“ Strom.” τι. xx. p. 489) and Eusebius (“ H. Εἰ," 
i, 12; ii. 1) tell us that he was one of the Seventy Disciples. This 
statement fully accords with the inspired historian’s account of his early 
attachment to the Church, and zeal in its cause; for 8. Barnabas was the 
first who “having land sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at 
the Apostles’ feet.".—Acts, iv. 37. We next find him introducing the 
lately converted S. Paul to the Apostles (ix. 27) ; and subsequently journey- 
ing from Antioch “ to Tarsus for to seek Saul” (xi. 25), whom he accom- 
panied on his first mission as an Apostle (xiii). In consequence of the 
dispute respecting his kinsman “john, whose surname was Mark,” he was 
for a time separated from S. Paul (xv. 36-39); and we learn from Gal. ii. 
13, that S. Barnabas, in common with S. Peter, was led astray by the 
dissimulation of the Jews, 

Referring to the early records of the Church, we learn further that an 
Epistle was generally received as proceeding from the pen of S. Barnabas, 
which is frequently quoted in the writings of Clemens Alexandrinus and 
Origen. Its existence is also mentioned by Eusebius, 5. Jerome, and Nice- 
phorus. For many centuries all knowledge of this Epistle was confined to 
such allusions, It was for the first time printed in 1643 by Archbishop 
Ussher, at Oxford; but the entire of this impression was destroyed during 
a great fire in that city. The first edition, therefore, actually published was 
that of Hugo Menardus, in 1645; and it was followed in the next year by 
another, edited by Is. Vossius. Ussher and Menardus were inclined to 
doubt the genuineness of this composition, which, on the other hand, Vos- 
sius defended : and thus the controversy on the subject commenced. This 
controversy is free from one difficulty, which, in such cases, is usually the 
most formidable: all parties admitting that, were we to confine ourselves 
to EXTERNAL EVIDENCE, there can be no doubt that S. Barnabas was the 
author.’ The manner in which early writers accepted this Epistle as the 


these three writings in the Chureh is, I venture to think, unsupported by sufficient 
evidence. (See his ‘Codex Vanonum,” lib. 1. cap. ix. § 11.) 

? Ullman (“Studien ἃ. Kritiken,” 1828, 5, 378 ff.) identifies S. Barnabas with Bar- 
sabas (Acts, i. 23); on the grounds that the Peschito and some MSS., in Acts, i. 23, 
for ’Iwo7@ read ᾿Ιωσῆς (who “was surnamed Barnabas”—Acts, iv. 36); and that, for 
Βαρσάβᾶς, Cod. D and the Ethiopian Version read Βαρνάβας. With this agrees the 
statement of Clemens Al. and Eusebius, that S. Barnabas was one of the Seventy; 
for Barsabas is described as having been an eye-witness of the Life of Christ. 
Although not elected into the place of Judas, he is called an Apostle (Acts, 
xiv. 4). How does it happen, also, that we hear no more of Barsabas? ΟἿ the 
curious statement of the “Recogn. 8. Clementis” (ap. Coteler., t i. p. 507):— 
“Post quem Barnabas, qui et Matthias, qui in locum Jude subrogatus est Apos- 
tolus,” &c. 

2’ Even Ullman, who, in the essay alluded to, attempts in vain to weaken the ex- 
ternal evidence admits: “Das Hochste, was wir den Verfechtern der Aechtheit 


416 APPENDIX E. 


work of S. Barnabas, has been already pointed out (Lecture ii. p. 58, and 
p. 58, note *); and so high an authority as Bishop Pearson can be appealed 
to as decidmg “hanc Epistolam eandem esse quam veteres in manibus 
᾿ habuerunt.”* Nor is this fact, that all external evidence is decisive in sup- 
port of its genuineness, questioned by its leading opponent in modern times, 
the historian Neander, who does not, however, condescend to discuss this 
branch of the question. In his remarks on the most distinguished teach- 
ers of the Church, he writes :—“ We must mention here, in the first place, 
Barnabas, the well-known companion of the Apostle Paul, if an Epistle 
really belonged to him, which was known in the second century, in the 
Church of Alexandria, under his name, and which bore the superscription 
of a Catholic Epistle. But we cannot possibly recognise in it the Barna- 
bas who was worthy to be a companion of the apostolic labors of Paul, 
and who had received his name in the Church from the power of his in- 
spired elocution (υἱὸς παρακλήσεως, υἱὸς προφητείας). There floats be- 
fore us here a spirit altogether different from that of such an apostolic man, 
We here remark an educated Alexandrian Jew, who had gone over to 
Christianity ; who, by his Alexandrian education, was prepared for a more 
spiritual apprehension of Christianity, but who laid too great stress upon 
an untenable Alexandrian, artificial Jewish, gnosis; who, in a mystical ex- 
position,—which plays upon the words of the Old Testament, and which 
seems to resemble the spirit of Philo rather than the spirit of Paul, or even 
of the Epistle to the Hebrews,—sought for special wisdom, and therein idly 
indulged himself’’ This statement of the case Involves two assumptions, 
neither of which appears capable of support. (1) It is assumed, in the 
first place, that an Epistle proceeding from a companion of the Apos- 
tles, who, on certain occasions, was inspired in his preaching, must of 
necessity have been written under the influence of Inspiration. This as- 
sumption, however, is founded upon the twofold error,—that the gift of 
Inspiration was permanent (in answer to which compare the Scriptural 
facts brought forward, p. 221, note *); and that Inspiration itself is of such 
a nature as the school of Schleiermacher has defined it to be (see also p. 34, 
and p. 219, note '). (2) The second principle assumed by Neander, or, at 
least, by the majority of writers who agree with him in his argument 
against this Epistle—is that the system of allegorical exposition, which is 
there earried to such an extent, was unsuited alike to the age, and the ob- 
ject, of 5. Barnabas, supposing him to have been the author. But both 
branches of this assumption also are again unfounded. That the principle 
of spiritually expounding the events and language of the Old Testament 
was not unsuited to the Apostolic age, we learn from the fact of the frequent 
adoption of such a system of interpretation by the New Testament writers 


zugeben, ist, dass der Brief, sofern wir bloss die Tradition [i. e. historical evidence], 
ins Auge fassen, von Barnabas seyn kann.”—Loc. cit. 5. 3817. 

1 “Minor Theol. Works’”—“ Lect. in Acta Apost. ii.”—ed. Churton, vol. i. p. 335. 
As J. C. Rordam observes: ‘“‘Unam eandemque esse Epistolam Barnabze dubitari 
nequit; hoc enim satis probant loci ii, quos ex epistola Barnabze laudarunt Patres ec- 
clesiastici, qui verbo tenus in epistola nostra extant; quod neque injicias quisquam ivit 
preter Abr. Calovium, qui conjecturze vento leviori obtemperans, Epistole hujus cons 
sarcinatorem fragmenta illa Barnabze ex Clemente Alex. et Origene suo figmento in 
seruisse suspicatur.”—De Authent. Hp. Barnabe, Hafn. 1828. p. 9. 

3. Allgem. Gesch. der christl. Kirche,” B i. 5, 1133. 2te Aufl 


APPENDIX E. 411 


themselves (6, g. Gal. iv. 22, ὅσο. ; Rom. ix. 8; 2 Cor. ii, 13, &c.; Eph. 
v. 32; Heb. vii.; ix.; x. 15 xi. 19—cf. Lecture vii. p. 318, &c.): as well 
as from its use by S. Clement of Rome in his Epistle." Any objection, 
therefore, founded upon the exaggeration of this principle by S. Barnabas 
(an exaggeration which I am not prepared to deny), rests upon the assump- 
tion, already shown to be without foundation, that any composition of his 
must: have been free from defects; i. 6. that it must have been inspired. 
Equally untenable is the objection that an allegorical exposition of the Old 
Testament was not suited to the writev’s object. The Epistle, as all critics 
(except Lardner,— Works, vol. ii. p. 19,—who thinks it was written to 
Gentiles) allow, was addressed to Jewish Christians; for whom the author 
was bound to prove that the “Old Testament was not contrary to the New.” 
Accordingly, S. Barnabas argues (ch. i—ix.), that, in the prophecies and 
types cf the Old Testament sufficient is contained, relating to Christ and 
His death, to serve as the foundation of the New Covenant: and hence 
that the Jews cannot argue against Christianity from their own inspired 
writings. He then goes on to show that the Old Testament, as the Jews 
understood it, was but an ewternal system; and, consequently, was to be 
done away by means of a system of énternal religion which was to be per- 
fected (ch. x.); that both Christian Baptism, and the manner of the Mes- 
siah’s death, were predicted in the Old Testament (xi.; xii.) ; and therefore 
that not Jews but Christians are the people of the inheritance. From which 
it follows (ch. xiii.—xvili.) that neither was the Jewish Sabbath the true day 
of rest, but merely a type of the great Day of Rest at the end of the 
world ; nor was the Temple of Jerusalem the true dwelling of God, for £¢ 
is in the hearts of believers (λαβόντες τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν, καὶ 
ἐλπίσαντες ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ Κυρίου, ἐγενόμεθα καινοί, * * * 
διὸ ἐν τῷ κατοικητηρίῳ ἡμῶν ἀληθῶς ὃ Θεὸς κατοικεῖ ἐν ἡμῖν----ο, xvi). 
From ch. xviii. to xxi., the contents of the Epistle are hortatory.’ 

It is to be added, that neither in the salutation nor elsewhere does the 
author name himself; nor does the Epistle appear to have had any title 
originally (see Wake’s “ Prel. Disc.,” § 35) :—facts which, coupled with 
the frequent citation of it by Clemens Al. as the production of S. Barna- 


1 E. g. his exposition of the “line of scarlet thread,” given by the spies to Rahab 
fea ii. 18; cf Heb. xi. 31), as symbolizing “the Redemption by the Lord’s Blood 
ὅτι διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ Κυρίου λύτρωσις éora)’—Ep. ad Cor. c. xii.:—see Rordam, 
loc. cit. pp. 33, 86. 

? See the essay by C. E. Francke in Rudelbach and Guerike’s Journal for 1840, 
H. ii. s. 67 ff In ch. xv., speaking of the Lord’s rest on the Seventh Day (Gen. ii. 2); 
3. Barnabas says: “We are greatly deceived if we imagine that any one can now 
sanctify that day which God has made holy, without having a heart pure in all 
things. * * * He saith unto them, Your new moons and your sabbaths, I cannot 
bear them (Isai. i, 13) ;—the sabbaths, says He, which ye now keep, are not accepta- 
ble unto Me, but those which I have made; when resting from all things, I shall begin 
the Eighth Day, that is the beginning of the otber world. For which cause we ob- 
serve the eighth day with gladness, in which Jesus rose from the dead; and having 
manifested Himself to His Disciples, He ascended into Heaven (ἐν ἡ καὶ 6 ᾿Ιησοῦς ἀνέστη 
ἐκ νεκρῶν, καὶ φανερωθεὶς ἀνέβη εἰς τοὺς οὐρανούς)" (“ Wake’s transL) On this passage 
Rordam ingeniously observes: “Crediderim pene, haud veri absimilem esse con- 
jecturam, vestigium quoddam certe cujusdam et universalis de ultimis Jesu fatis 
loquendi rationis, forsan Symboli Apostolici elementum in hoe loco inesse.”—Loc. cit 
F 60. 

27 


418 APPENDIX F. 


bas, at once meet any allegation as to the work being an intvntional for- 
gery. Hefele, who, on the usual grounds, refuses to acknowledge the 
authorship of 5. Barnabas, thus speaks of its date :—‘ Revera primis se- 
uli secundi temporibus 107—120 epistolam nostram exaratam esse putem.” 
-—Proleg. ed. altera. 

Whatever decision the reader may arrive at, from considering the fore- 
going observations, it is plain that the argument, which I have founded 
upon the admitted fact of the recognition, by the early Church, of this 
Epistle as the composition of S. Barnabas, remains altogether unaffeeted— 
(see supra, p. 58). One of the leading arguments of Ullmann is conse- 
quently proved to be altogether destitute of weight :— 

“Wenn der Brief aus dem Kanon ausgeschlossen wurde, so war eben 
haermit auch seine Aechtheit geleugnet; denn Kanonicitat und Authentie 
fallen hier zusammen :”—because, he adds, had the Epistle proceeded from 
the pen of S. Barnabas, the Church would have felt no scruple as to re- 
ceiving it into the Canon !—Zoe. cit. 5, 885. It has been shown, however, 
that Clemens Al., who expressly states that it proceeded from “ the com- 
panion of S. Paul,” did not regard this Epistle as a portion of Scripture— 
See Lecture ii. p. 58, note 7. 


APPENDIX F. 
PHILO AND JOSEPHUS. 


(Lecture II.—Pace 64, &c.) 


Tue following extracts, in addition te those which have been already 
given from the writings of Philo and Josephus, may in each case be ranged 
under two heads ;—namely, those which express (1) their opinions with 
respect to Inspiration in general; and (2) those which contain references 
to the separate books of the Old Testament. 

I. The locus classicus (“Vita Mosis,” lib. 11. t. ii, p. 168), in which 
Philo’s theory of inspiration is conveyed, and which has been already 
dwelt upon (see supra, p. 64), as follows :— 

Οὐκ ἀγνοῶ μὲν οὗν, ὡς πάντα εἰσὶ χρησμοὶ ὅσα ἐν ταῖς ἱεραῖς βίβλοις 
ἀναγέγραπται, χρησθέντες δι’ αὐτοῦ. Λέξω δὲ τὰ ἰδιαίτερα, πρότερον 
εἰπὼν ἐκεῖνο. τῶν λογίων γὰρ, τὰ μὲν ἐκ προσώπου τοῦ Θεοῦ λέγεται dL’ 
ἑρμηνέως τοῦ θείου προφήτου" τὰ δὲ ἐκ πεύσεως καὶ ἀποκρίσεως ἐθεσπίσ- 
θη: τὰ δ᾽ ἐκ, προσώπου Μωὺύσέως ἐπιθειάσαντος, καὶ ἐξ αὑτοῦ κατασχε- 
θέντος. Τὰ μὲν οὖν πρῶτα ὅλα δι᾽ ὅλων ἀρετῶν θείων δείγματ᾽ ἐστὶ, τῆς τε 
ἵλεω καὶ εὐεργέτιδος, δι᾽ ὧν ἅπαντας μὲν ἀνθρώπους πρὸς καλοκαγαθίαν 
ἀλείφει: μάλιστα δὲ τὸ θεραπευτικὸν αὐτοῦ γένος, ᾧ τὴν πρὸς εὐδαιμο- 
νίαν ἄγουσαν dvatéuvet ὁδόν. Ta δὲ δεύτερα μίξιν ἔχει. καὶ κοινωνίαν, 
πυνθανομένου μὲν τοῦ προφήτου περὶ ὧν ἐπεζήτει, ἀποκρινομένου δὲ τοῦ 
Θεοῦ καὶ διδάσκοντος. Τὰ δὲ τρίτα ἀνατίθεται τῷ νομοθέτῃ, μεταδόντος 
αὐτῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῆς προγνοστικῆς δυνάμεως, ἡ θεσπιεῖ τά μέλλοντα. Τὰ 
μὲν οὖν πρῶτα ὑπερθετέον" μείζονα γάρ ἐστιν ἢ ὡς ὑπ᾽ ἀνθρώπου τινὸς 
ἐπαινεθῆναι, μόλις ἂν ὑπ᾽ οὐρανοῦ τε καὶ κόσμου, καὶ τῆς τῶν ὅλων 
φύσεως ἀξίως ἐγκωμιασθέντα, καὶ ἄλλως λέγεται ὡσανεὶ dv’ ἑρμηνέως 


APPENDIX F, 419 


‘Epunveia δὲ καὶ προφητεία διαφερουσι. ἹΕερὶ δὲ τῶν δευτέρων αὐτίκα 
πειράσομαι δηλοῦν, συνυφήνας αὐτοῖς καὶ τὸ τρίτον εἶδος, ἐν ᾧ τὸ τοῦ 
λέγοντος ἐνθουσιῶδες ἐμφαίνεται, καθ᾽ ὃ μάλιστα καὶ κυρίως νενόμισται 
προφήτης. 

On this statement I have already commented. From it we learn the 
views of Philo as to the source of the “Sacred Books,” and the relations 
in which their different writers stood to God. His opinion, also, as to the 
personal state of the Prophets while subject to the Divine influence is laid 
down in the words which immediately precede the passage quoted p. 65, 
note *:— 

Ἕως ἔτι περιλάμπει καὶ περιπολεῖ ἡμῶν ὃ νοῦς, μεσημβρινὸν ola 
φέγγος εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν ψυχὴν ἀναχέων, ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ὄντες, οὐ κατεχόμεθα" 
ἐπειδὰν δὲ πρὸς δυσμὰς γένηται, κατὰ τὸ εἰκὸς ἔκστασις ἡ ἔνθεος 
ἐπιπίπτει, κατοχωτική τε καὶ μανία. Ὅτε μὲν γὰρ φῶς ἐπιλάμψει τὸ 
θεῖον, δύεται τὸ ἀνθρώπινον, ὅτε δ᾽ ἐκεῖνο δύει, τοῦτ᾽ ἀνίσχει καὶ ἀνα- 
τέλλει. Τῷ δὲ προφητικῷ γένει φιλεῖ τοῦτο συμβαίνειν" κ. τι. A.—where 
Philo is speaking of Gen, xv. 12 [LXX.]: περὶ δὲ ἡλίου δυσμὰς ἔκστασις 
ἐπέπεσε τῷ “ABpay,—and where he understands by ἥλιος the human 
spirit, and explains δυσμή by ἐκστῆναι. 

Philo’s opinion, too, as to the result of the influence (Inspiration— 
which he names προφητεία, in its general sense), under which the “Sa- 
cred Books” were written, as distinct from the reception and promulgation 
by their writers of new truths from God (Revelation—épunveia), is clearly 
intimated by the language in which he adopts the tradition as to the man- 
ner in which the Seventy Interpreters translated the Hebrew Scriptures :— 
viz., that each, in his separate cell, completed the whole work; and that 
the seventy translations thus produced agreed even in the most minute 
particulars. He writes (“De Vita Mosis,” lib. τι. t. 11, p. 140) :--Ο  αθίσαντες 
δ᾽ ἐν ἀποκρύφῳ, καὶ μηδενὸς παρόντος ὅτι μὴ τῶν τῆς φύσεως μερῶν, γῆς, 
ὕδατος, ἀέρος, οὐρανοῦ, περὶ ὧν πρῶτον τῆς γενέσεως ἔμελλον ἱεροφαν- 
τήσειν: κοσμοποιΐα yap ἣ τῶν νόμων ἐστὴν ἀρχή" καθάπερ ἐνθουσιῶντες 
προεφήτευον οὐκ ἄλλα ἄλλοι, τὰ δ᾽ αὐτὰ πάντες ὀνόματα καὶ ῥήματα, 
ὥσπερ ὑποβολέως ἐκάστοις ἀοράτως ἐνηχοῦντος. 

His previous account, too (ibid. p. 139), of the notion which the trans- 
lators entertained as to what was required in a correct Version of the 
Divine Oracles, exhibits in the clearest manner the opinion which the Jews 
held as to the original Scriptures themselves :—Aoy:odyevoe παρ᾽ αὑτοῖς 
ὅσον εἴη τὸ πρᾶγμα θεσπισθέντας νόμους χρησμοῖς διερ- 
μηνεύειν, μήτ᾽ ἀφελεῖν τι, μήτε προσθεῖναι, μήτε μεταθεῖναι δυναμένους, 
ἀλλὰ τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἰδέαν καὶ τὸν τύπον αὐτῶν διαφυλάττοντας, κ. τ. λ. 
Believing the history of this miracle to be true, Philo naturally regarded 
the LXX. as inspired; and his opinion as to the nature of its Inspiration 
(and therefore of Inspiration in general), we can infer from the fact that he 
constantly founds his reasoning on the language employed in the Greek 
Version :—e. g, on the insertion or omission of the article before Θεός ; 
as well as upon the mere selection of the words employed by the transla- 
tors. Thus, in his Treatise “De Somniis,” lib. i, (t. i. p. 655), he argues :— 
6 ἱερὸς λόγος (i. e. the Old Testament) τὸν μὲν ἀληθείᾳ Θεὸν Jia τοῦ 
ἄοθρου μεμήνυκεν, εἰπών: yc εἰμι ὃ Θεός [e. g. Ex, xx. 2]. τὸν δ᾽ 
ἐν καταχρήσει χωρὶς ἄρθρου. «(See Gfrorer, “ Philo,” 5. ὅ1 ff.) And 


420 APPENDIX Ε΄. 


again, in his treatise “ De Confus. Linguar.” (t. 1. p. 434), having quoted 
Gen. xi. 7 (LXX.), Συγχέωμεν ἐκεῖ αὐτῶν τὴν γλῶτταν κ. τ. A.—he pro 
ceeds to argue from these words “tropologically” (ἐπὶ τὰς τροπικὰς 
ἀποδόσεις) ; observing, τὰ μὲν ῥητὰ τῶν χρησμῶν σκιάς τινας ὡσανεὶ 
σωμάτων εἷναι : his argument resting solely on the use in this place, by 
the LXX., of σύγχυσις instead of διάκρισις : and he goes on (ébid.) tu 
reason similarly from the use (ver. 8) of the word διέσπειρεν. 

IL. In addition to the references to the Books of the Old Testament, 
given supra, pp. 66, 67, may be cited the following :—Ps. xx. 22 is quoted 
with the phrase τῶν Μωῦσέως γνωρίμων τις ἐν ὕμνοις εὐχόμενος εἷπεν---- 
De Confus. Ling. t. i. p. 410; and David is elsewhere styled ἑταῖρος 
Mwioéwe— Quod a Deo Somnia, 469i. 

The Proverbs are quoted in the treatise “ De Ebrietate,” t. 1. p. 369 ; 
and Solomon is called a member ἐκ τοῦ θείου χοροῦ (ibid. p. 362); and 
τις τῶν φοιτητῶν Mwicéwe.—* De Congr. quer. γιά. Grat.,” t. i. 

. 544, 
The words of Jeremiah (11. 3) are introduced as uttered by “the Father 
of the Universe :”—0d Πατὴρ τῶν ὅλων διὰ προφητικῶν ἐθέσπισε στο- 
μάτων .---7}6 Profugis, t.1. p. 575. 

Philo quotes Hosea (see p. 65, note *) and Zechariah alone of Minor 
Prophets. Hos. xiv. 24, is referred to with the words »--στόματι προφητικῷ 
θεσπισθέντα διάπυρον χρησμόν.---) 6 Mutat. Νοηι., t. 1. p. 599. And 
Zech. vi. 12, is thus introduced :- --ἤκουσα μέντοι καὶ τῶν Mwiscéwe éta- 
ipwv τινὸς ἀποφθεγξαμένου τοιόνδε λόγον: ᾿Ιδοὺ ἄνθρωπος ᾧ ὄνομα 
avatoAn.—De Confus. Ling., t. i. p. 414. : 

Philo refers to several of the other Books without any distinctive epi- 
thet ; but, as Eichhorn observes (“ Einleit. in das A. T.,” B. i. s. 135), since 
he nowhere quotes any part of the Apocrypha, although necessarily, and, 
from his allusions, obviously, familiar with this portion of the LXX., it 
clearly follows that the mere reference to a Book of Scripture, although 
unaccompanied by any title of respect, exhibits its pre-eminence, in Philo’s 
opinion, above all other writings; and is equivalent to a full recognition 
of its inspiration. E. g. he quotes Job, xiv. 4, with the simple phrase, ὡς 
6 Ἰώβ ¢not.—De Mut. Nom., t. i. p. 585. 

In the writings of J osephus, the locus classicus alluded to supra, p. 68, 
occurs in his treatise against Apion, and is as follows :— 

I. Josephus had just alluded to the contradictions to be continually met 
with in the Greek historians. The Egyptians and Babylonians, indeed, 
paid great attention to the composition of their records ; but the Jews excel 
all others τ Περὶ δὲ τῶν ἡμετέρων προγόνων, ὅτι τὴν αὐτὴν, ἐῶ γὰρ 
λέγειν εἰ καὶ πλείω τῶν εἰρημένων ἐποιήσαντο τὴν περὶ τὰς ἀναγραφὰς 
ἐπιμέλειαν, τοῖς ἀρχιερεῦσι καὶ τοῖς προφήταις τοῦτο προστάξαντες. καὶ 
ὡς μέχρι τῶν καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς χρόνων πεφύλακται μετὰ πολλῆς ἀκριβείας, εἰ 
δὲ θρασύτερον εἰπεῖν, καὶ φυλαχθήσεται, πειράσομαι συντόμως διδάσκειν. 
Οὐ νὰρ μόνον ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐπὶ τούτων τοὺς ἀρίστους, καὶ τῇ θεραπείᾳ τοῦ 
Θεοῦ προσεδρεύοντας κατέστησαν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅπως τὸ γένος τῶν ἱερέων 
ἄμικτον καὶ καθαρὸν διαμένῃ, προυνόησαν. Δεῖ γὰρ τὸν μετέχοντα τῆς 
ἱερωσύνης ἐξ ὁμοεθνοῦς γυναικὸς παιδοποιεῖσθαι, καὶ μὴ πρὸς χρήματα, 
undé τὰς ἄλλας ἀποβλέπειν τιμὰς, ἀλλὰ τὸ γένος ἐξετάζειν, Ex τῶν 
ἀρχαίων, λαμβάνοντα τὴν διαδοχὴν, καὶ πολλοὺς παρασχόμενον μάρτυ- 


APPENDIX Ε΄. 421 


ρας. Καὶ ταῦτα πράττομεν ob μόνον ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς ᾿Ιουδαίας, ἀλλ᾽ ὅπου 
ποτὲ σύστημα τοῦ γένους ἐστὴν ἡμῶν. κἀκεῖ τὸ ἀκριβὲς ἀποσώζεται τοῖς 
ἱερεῦσι περὶ τοὺς γάμους * * * Τεκμήριον δὲ μέγιστον τῆς ἀκρι- 
βείας. οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς οἱ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἀπὸ δισχιλίων ἐτῶν ὀνομαστοὶ παῖδες ἐκ 
πατρὸς εἰσὶν ἐν ταῖς ἀναγραφαῖς. Τοῖς δὲ τῶν εἰρημένων 6 τι: οὖν 
γένοιτο εἰς παραβασιν, ἀπηγόρευται μήτε τοῖς βωμοῖς παρίστασθαι, μὴτε 
μετέχειν τῆς ἄλλης ἁχιστείας. Εϊκότως οὗν, μᾶλλον δὲ ἀναγκαίως, ἅτε 
μήτε τοῦ ὑπογράφειν αὐτεξουσίου πᾶσιν ὄντος, μήτε τινὸς ἐν τοῖς γραφ- 
ομένοις ἐνούσης διαφωνίας" ἀλλὰ μόνων τῶν προφητῶν TA μὲν ἀνωτάτω 
καὶ τὰ πωλαιότατα, κατὰ την ἐπίπνοιαν τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ μαθόντων, τὰ 
δὲ καθ’ αὑτοὺς ὡς ἐγενετο σαφῶς συγγραφόντων. Οὐ yap μυριάδες 
βιβλίων εἰσὶ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἀσυμφώνων καὶ μαχομένων: δύο δὲ μόνα πρὸς 
τοῖς εἴκοσι βιβλία, τοῦ παντὸς ἔχοντα χρόνου τὴν ἀναγραφὴν, τὰ δικα- 
ίως θεῖα πεπιστευμένα. Kat τούτων πέντε μέν ἐστι τὰ Μωῦσέως, ἃ τούς 
τε νόμους περιέχει, καὶ τὴν τῆς ἀνθρωπογονίας παράδοσιν, μέχρι τῆς 
αὐτοῦ τελευτῆς. Οὗτος ὁ χρόνος ἀπολείπει. τρισχιλίων ὀλίγον ἐτῶν. 
᾿Απὸ δὲ τῆς Mwvoéwe τελευτῆς μέχρι τῆς ᾿Αρταξέρξου τοῦ μετὰ Ξέρξην 
Περσῶν βασιλέως ἀρχῆς, οἱ μετὰ Μωῦσῆν προφῆται τὰ καθ᾽ αὑτοὺς 
πραχθέντα συνέγραψαν ἐν τρισὶ καὶ δέκα βιβλίοις. Αἱ δὲ λοιπαὶ τέσ- 
σαρες ὕμνους, εἰς τὸν Θεὸν καὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ὑποθήκας τοῦ βίου περι- 
έχουσιν. "Απὸ δὲ ᾿Αρταξέρξου μέχρι τοῦ καθ’ ἡμᾶς χρόνου γέγραπται 
- μὲν ἕκαστα" πίστεως δὲ οὐχ ὁμοίας ἠξίωται τοῖς πρὸ αὐτῶν, διὰ τὸ μὴ 
γενέσθαι τὴν τῶν προφητῶν ἀκριβῆ διαδοχήν. Δῆλον δ᾽ ἔστιν ἔργῳ 
πῶς ἡμεῖς τοῖς ἰδίοις γράμμασι πεπιστεύκαμεν. TooodTov γὰρ αἰῶνος 
ἤδη παρῳχηκότος, οὔτε προσθεῖναί τις οὐδὲν, οὔτε ἀφελεῖν αὐτῶν, οὔτε 
μεταθεῖναε τετόλμηκεν. Πᾶσι δὲ σύμφυτόν ἐστιν εὐθὺς ἐκ τῆς πρώτης 
γενέσεως Ιουδαίοις, τὸ νομίζειν αὐτὰ Θεοῦ δόγματα, καὶ τούτοις ἐμμένειν, 
καὶ ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν, εἰ δέοι, θνήσκειν Hdéwe.”—Cont. Apion. lib. i. § 6--8, 
t. ii. p. 440. 

In this same treatise (lib. ii. t. ii. p. 472), speaking of the origin of the 
LXX., Josephus styles the Old Testament “ Holy Scripture ;” Ptolemy 
Philadelphus, he observes, ἐπεθυμητὴς ἐγένετο τοῦ γνῶναι τοὺς ἡμετέρους 
νόμους, καὶ ταῖς τῶν ἱερῶν γραφῶν βίβλοις ἐντυχεῖν. (Cf. supra, 

. 212. 

Thee the views of Philo and Josephus, as to Inspiration, agree in all 
essential particulars appears (1) from the fact that Josephus also has used 
the term ἑρμηνεύς in the sense in which it is employed by Philo (see Lec- 
ture ii, p. 64, &c.), although he has not developed his meaning so fully. 
Thus (“ Ant.” τι. v. 3, t. i. p. 128) Moses is introduced as addressing the 
people previously to giving them the Ten Commandments. He declares 
that it is not Moses, the son of Amram and Jochebed, from whom these 
precepts proceed: they have come from Him Who made the Nile run with 
blood; Who brought water from the rock; and Who preserved Noah 
from the Deluge—Otro¢g ὑμῖν τούτους χαρίζεται τοὺς λόγους δι’ 
ἑρμηνέως ἐμοῦ. Cf. also his opinion as to the meaning of προφή- 
tn¢.—Lecture 11. p. 67, note *. (2) Their agreement may also be inferred 
from the description which Josephus has given of the effects of the Divine 
influence, as exemplified in the case of Balaam :— 

Kal 6 μὲν τοιαῦτα ἐπεθείαζεν, οὐκ ὧν ἐν ἑαυτῷ, τῷ δὲ Oeiw πνεύ- 
ματι πρὰς αὐτὰ κεκινημένος. “Τοῦ δὲ Βαλάκου δυσχεραίνοντος. * * * 


422 APPENDIX F. 


ὦ Βάλακε, φησὶ, περὶ τῶν ὅλων λογίζῃ καὶ δοκεῖς ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν eivai τι περὶ 
τῶν τοιούτων σιγᾷν ἢ λέγειν, ὅταν ἡμᾶς τὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ λάβῃ πνεῦμα͵ 
φωνὰς γὰρ ἃς βούλεται τοῦτο, καὶ λόγους, οὐδὲν ἡμῶν εἰδότων, ἀφίησιν. 
* * * παντελῶς γὰρ ἀσθενεῖς οἱ προγινώσκειν περὶ τῶν ἀνθρωπείων 
παρ᾽ ἑαυτῶν λαμβάνοντες, ὥστε μὴ ταῦθ᾽ ἅπερ ὑπαγορεύει τὸ θεῖον 
λέγειν, βιάζεσθαι δὲ τὴν ἐκείνου βούλησιν. Οὐδὲν γὰρ ἐν ἡμῖν ἔτι 
φθάσαντος εἰσελθεῖν ἐκείνου ἡμέτερον .--- 4 πΐ. lib. tv. vi. 5, t. i. p. 216. 
With this passage we can compare not only the statement of Philo when 
referring to this same subject (see Lecture v. p. 206, note *); but also his 
general opinion as to the personal condition of the Prophets, already 
quoted Lecture ii. p. 70, note °. 

II. As to the opinion of Josephus with respect to the Old Testament, 
it is sufficiently indicated in the passage, from his work against Apion, 
quoted above; and, therefore, special reference to his manner of citing the 
several books is not necessary here. The twenty-two books, there spoken 
of, comprise the Five books of Moses; the following thirteen written “ by 
the Prophets after Moses :”—viz., (1) Joshua, (2) Judges and Ruth, (3) 1 
and 2 Samuel, (4) 1 and 2 Kings, (5) 1 and 2 Chronicles, (6) Ezra and 
Nehemiah, (7) Esther, (8) Isaiah, (9) Jeremiah and Lamentations, (10) 
Ezekiel, (11) Daniel, (12) The Twelve Minor Prophets, (13) Job; while 
the λοιπαὶ τέσσαρες consist of the Books of Psalms and Proverbs, Ec- 
clesiastes, and the Song of Solomon (see De Wette on the passage, 
“ Kinleit.,” § 15, s. 20). It is needless, after so explicit a statement, to 
enter into particulars :—one may refer either to his manner of appealing 
to Isaiah and the Twelve Minor Prophets, as adduced in Lecture ii. p. 68, 
note ἡ; or to his allusions to Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, as cited Lec- 
ture v., p. 188, note *. It has been also pointed out (Lecture vi., p. 256, 
note ”) that he places the Book of Daniel among the ἱερὰ γράμματα ; to 
which statement the following remarkable passage may be added (“ Ant.” 
x, xi. 7, t. i. p. 548) :---ὅπαντα γὰρ αὐτῷ παραδόξως ὡς ἑνί τινι τῶν 
μεγίστων εὐτυχήθη προφητῶν * * * τὰ γὰρ βιβλία, ὅσα δὴ συγ- 
γραψάμενος καταλέλοιπεν, ἀναγινώσκεται παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἔτι καὶ νῦν" καὶ 
πεπιστεύκαμεν ἐξ αὐτῶν, ὅτι Δανιῆλος ὡμίλει τῷ Θεῷ. οὐ γὰρ τὰ μέλ- 
λοντα μόνον προφητεύων διετέλει, καθάπερ καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι προφῆται, 
ἀλλὰ καὶ καιρὸν ὥριζεν, εἰς ὃν ταῦτα ἀποβήσεται: καὶ τῶν προφητῶν τὰ 
χείρω προλεγόντων, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο δυσχεραινομένων ὑπὸ τῶν βασιλέων 
καὶ τοῦ πλήθους, Δανιῆλος ἀγαθῶν ἐγίνετο προφήτης αὐτοῖς, ὡς ἀπὸ 
μὲν τῆς εὐφημίας τῶν προλεγομένων εὔνοιαν ἐπισπᾶσθαι παρὰ πάντων, 
ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ τέλους αὐτῶν [i. 6. “ex eventuum certitudine”] ἀληθείας πίσ- 
τιν, καὶ δόξαν ὁμοῦ θειότητος παρὰ τοῖς ὄχλοις ἀποφέρεσθαι. κατέλιπε 
δὲ γράψας, ὅθεν ἡμῖν τὸ τῆς προφητείας ἀκριβὲς αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀπαράλ- 
λακτον ἐποίησε δῆλον [he quotes Dan. viii.] * * * ταῦτα πάντα 
ἐκεῖνος, Θεοῦ δείξαντος αὐτῷ, συγγράψας κατέλειψεν" ὥστε τοὺς avayt- 
νώσκοντας, καὶ τὰ συμβαίνοντα σκοποῦντας θαυμάζειν ἐπὶ τῇ παρὰ τοῦ 
Θεοῦ τιμῇ τὸν Δανιῆλον. From this we learn that Josephus considered 


1 We learn from this passage that the fulfilment of an ancient prediction was the 
criterion, to a Jew, of the Divine mission of the Prophet—a principle, indeed, which 
the Old Testament itself had laid down: cf. Deut. xviii. 22. See also the passages 
quoted from Josephus, p. 68, note 1, and at the close of the note, p. 189. In the 
tame manner Philo represents Moses as announcing before his death the future 


APPENDIX G. 423 


a Book which has been placed among the Hagiographa (see App. C) 
equal to any production of the greatest Prophets: while we learn from 
other passages in his writings, that he regarded the second division of the 
Old Testament—‘ the Prophets”—as undistinguishable from “the Law.” 
E. g. he mentions the Translation of Elijah, and that of Enoch, as being 
alike contained in the “ Sacred Books: —* περὶ μέντοι “HA fa, καὶ ‘Evayov 
τοῦ γενομένου πρὸ τῆς ἐπομβρίας, ἐν ταῖς ἱεραῖς ἀναγέγραπται βί- 
ὅλοις - Ant, ΙΧ. I. 2, t. 1. p. 475. 


APPENDIX G. 
THE JUDGMENT OF THE FATHERS, 


(Lecture Il—Page 77, &e.) 


Bgrore entering fully upon the opinions of the Fathers, it may be 
useful to point out the critical spirit with which they approached the dis- 
cussion of all questions connected with the Bible; whether relating to the 
authenticity of its several parts, its text, or its interpretation. These 
three particulars may be briefly illustrated. } 

(a) Julius Africanus (A.D, 220), whose critical acumen has been al- 
ready exemplified (Lecture ii. p. 89), argues, in an epistle addressed to 
Origen, against the canonical authority of the History of Susanna. The 
learned, to the present day, have accepted his reasoning as conclusive ; 
and have contented themselves with repeating his proof that this Apocry- 
phal book must have been written originally in Greek, and not in Hebrew. 
One of his arguments is founded on the paronomasias which occur in the 
language ascribed to Daniel (Susan. 51-59). Thus on the mention of a 
“mastick tree” (σχῖνος), Daniel replies that the angel shail “cut thee ἴῃ 
two” (σχίσει oe μέσον) ; and on the “ holm tree” (πρῖνος) being named, 
he replies, with a similar allusion, that the angel waits “to cut thee in 
two” (πρίσαι σε μέσον). Here Julius Afr. observes :—év μὲν οὖν ᾿Βλληνι- 
καῖς φωναῖς τὰ τοιαῦτα ὁμοφωνεῖν συμβαίνει, Tapa τὴν πρίνον τὸ 
πρίσαι, καὶ σχίσαι, παρὰ τὴν σχίνον: ἐν δὲ τῇ ᾿Εβραΐδι τῴ 
παντὶ διέστηκεν.---(αρ. Routh. “ Relig. Sacr.,” vol. ii. p. 226. 

(6) Cassiodorus (see Lect. viii. p. 359, note’), in his treatise “ De In- 
stitutione Divinarum Literarum,” speaking of the order to be observed in 
conducting the studies of youth, directs, “Ut tirones Christi, postquam 
Psalmos ἡπιδ ται auctoritatem divinam in codicibus emendatis jugi ex- 
ercitatione meditentur.” He states as follows the manner in which his 
own labors were conducted :— 

“Sed quamvis omnis Scriptura Divina superna luce resplendeat, et in 
ea virtus Spiritiis Sancti evidenter irradiet, in Psalterio tamen, et Prophetis, 
et Epistolis Apostolorum studium maximum laboris impendi, * * ἢ 
Quos ego cunctos novem codices auctoritatis divine (ut senex potui) sub 
collatione priscorum codicum, amicis ante me legentibus, sedula lectione 
transivi. Ubi me multum laborasse, Domino adjuvante, profiteor; qua- 
destinies of Israel:--dv τὰ μὲν ἤδη συμβέβηκε, τὰ δὲ προσδοκᾶται. διότι πίστις τῶν 
μελλόντων ἡ τῶν προγεγονότων τελείωσις.-----ἴ)6 Vita Mosis, lib. 1π. t. ii. p. 119. 


424 APPENDIX G. 


tenus nec eloquentiz modificate deessem, nec libros sacros teineraria 
presumptione lacerarem.”—Preef., t. 11. p. 538. 

(c) S. Augustine, in his treatise “ De Consensu Evangelistarum,” com- 
pares the accounts, given by S. Mark and 8. Luke, of the words from 
heaven at our Lord’s Baptism :— 

“Tllud vero quod nonnulli codices habent secundum Lucam, hoc illa 
voce sonuisse quod in Psalmo scriptum est: ‘ Filius meus es tu, ego hodie 
genui te; quamquam in antiquioribus codicibus. Greecis non inveniri perhi- 
beatur, tamen si aliquibus fide dignis exemplaribus confirmari possit, quid 
aliquid quam utrumque intelligendum est quolibet verborum ordine de 
cxlo sonuisse ?”—Lib. τι. ο. xiv. t. 111. pars 11. p. 46. 

Again : discussing the well-known difficulty as to the quotation as- 
cribed, in S. Matt. xxvii. 9, to Jeremiah, S. Augustine objects to the 
explanation which considers our present text ircorrect :— 

“Mihi autem cur non placeat hzee causa est, quia et plures codices 
habent Jeremiz nomen ; et qui diligentius in Graecis exemplaribus Evan- 
gelium consideraverunt, in antiquioribus Greeeis ita se perhibent invenisse : 
et nulla fuit causa cur adderetur hoc nomen, ut mendositas fieret: cur 
autem de nonnullis codicibus tolleretur, fuit utique causa, ut hoc audax 
imperitia faceret, cum turbaretur queestione quod hoc testimonium apud 
Jeremiam non inveniretur.”—JZobid. lib. m1. ὁ. vii. p. 114. 

The profound scholarship of S. Jerome has been sufficiently illustrated 
by those remarks respecting the relation of the LXX. to the Habito text 
of the Old Testament, which have been quoted from his writings in Lec- 
ture vii. 

Similar illustrations of the critical spirit with which the Fathers con- 
ducted their theological investigations might be multiplied to any extent. 
The foregoing remarks have been introduced merely for the purpose of 
drawing attention to the fact, that the judgment of the Church on the 
subject of Inspiration—pronounced, as we shall see, in every age, with 
such decision, and with such unanimity,—has not been formed under the 
influence of blind prejudice, or in consequence of an ignorant and un- 
reasoning submission to a mere traditional dogma. 

The following inquiry will be most fitly conducted according to the 
method laid down in Lecture ii. p. 81; the quotations being arranged 
under the heads which have been there adopted. 

I. Testimonies relating to the Divine influence exerted in the com- 
position of the Bible. These, again, may be divided into the following 
classes : 

(1) The Article of the Creed—* We believe in the Holy Ghost, Who 
spake by the Prophets.” 

S. Irenzeus (A. D. 167): Ἢ μὲν γὰρ Ἐκκλησία * * * παρὰ τῶν 
᾿Αποστόλων * * * παραλαβοῦσα τὴν εἰς Eva Θεὸν * * * πίσ- 
ty * * * Kal εἰς ΠΡεῦμα “Aytov, τὸ διὰ τῶν TPOOTNTOHY 
κεκηρυχός.---Οοπΐ. Her., lib. τ. cap. x. p. 48. 

Origen (A. 1). 230) lays down the articles of the Faith in the opening 
of his treatise “De Principiis.” Redepenning (in loc. p. 90) justly ob- 
serves: “Inter omnes Fidei regulas, Niceno Symbolo priores, nulla hac, 
quam Origenes hoc loco, xi. capitibus sive articulis comprehensam, @x- 
hil et, uberior est.” Origen there states: “Species eorum, que per pra- 


APPENDIX G. 425 


dicationem Apostolicam manifeste traduntur, iste sunt. * * * Sane 
quod Iste Spiritus unumquemque sanctorum, vel a one vel Apos- 
tolorum inspiraverit, et non alius Spiritus in veteribus, alius vero in his 
qui in adventu Christi Inspirati sunt fuerit, manifestissime in Ecclesiis 
preedicatur.”—Lib. i. § 4, t. 1. p. 48. 

S. Epiphanius (A. D. 368), at the close of his “ Ancoratus,” gives two 
formule of Faith (t. ii. p. 122, sqq.), in accordance (as he himself states, 
bid. p. 123) with that which had been laid down at Nica. In the 
former he recites the words of the Symbol of Constantinople quoted 
supra, p. 81, note’. In the second his definition is as follows :—el¢ TO 
“Ay. IIv. πιστευομεν, τὸ λαλῆσαν ἐν νόμῳ, καὶ κηρύξαν ἐν τοῖς προφή- 
Taig Kal * * * jAadovy ἐν ᾿Αποστύλοις, Kk. T. ἃ. 

And 8. Cyril of Jerusalem (A. Ὁ. 350) declares ; Ἢ καθολικὴ Ἔκκβλης 
σία, παρέδωκεν ἐν τῇ τῆς πίστεως ἐπαγγελίᾳ, πιστεύειν εἰς ἕν “Αγιον 
Πνεῦμα, τὸν ἸΤαράκλητον, τὸ λαλῆσαν ἐν τοῖς προφήταις .--- Catech. xvii. 
§ 3, p. 265. 

This doctrine was not denied even by the heretics. In Theodoret’s 
(AD. 423) “ Dialogues, ” the answer of the heretic Eranistes (quoted supra, 
Lecture ii. p. 79, note *) is preceded by the following question and the an- 
swer to it by the representative of the Church :—EPAN. Ti οὖν, ψεύδεται 
6 προφήτης; OPO. Μὴ γένοιτο: τοῦ Θείου γὰρ Πνεύματος καὶ ταῦτα 
κἀκεῖνα τὰ phuata.— Hranistes, Dial. i. t. wv. p. 12. 

Hence the title προφητικόν so frequently given to the Holy Ghost ; and 
this even with reference to His ordinary opertions upon all Christians, 
S. Justin M. (A.D. 140) writes (ef. too, supra, p. 81, note *) :—é ὧν 
παθεῖν ὑμῖν πάρεστι, πῶς προτρέπεται ζῇν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους τὸ T POG 7- 
τικὸν Πνεῦμ a—Apoloy., i. § 40, p. 67. 

Nor was this expression used merely in the case of prophets, strictly 
so called. S. Justin M. again writes: "Koa ὑμῖν καὶ ἄλλους λόγους τοὺς 
εἰρημένους διὰ Δαβὶδ τοῦ μακαρίου: ἐξ ὧν καὶ Κύριον τὸν Χριστὸν ὑπὸ 
τοῦ ‘Ayiov προφητικοῦ Πνεύματος λεγόμενον νοήσετε.---- 
Dial. cum Tryph., ὃ 32, p. 129. 

Thus, too, where he adduces Prov. viii. 22, it is employed by Athena- 
goras (A.D. 177) in a passage which should be taken in conjunction with 
his words quoted infra, No. (7), p. 431 -—Lvvdde δὲ τῷ Ady καὶ τὸ 
προφητικὸν Πνεῦμα" Κύριος γὰρ, φησὶν, EKTLOE μὲ ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν 
αὑτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὑτοῦ. καί τοι καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ ἐγεργοῦν τοῖς ἐκφωνοῦσι 
προφητικῶς “Αγιον Πνεῦμα, ἀπόῤῥοιαν εἷναι φαμὲν τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀποῤῥέον 
καὶ ἐπαναφερόμενον, ὡς ἀκτῖνα ijAiov.—Leg. pro Christ., § 10, p. 287. 

See also the words of S. Hippolytus quoted under the second head, 
No. (1) class (a), p. 432. 

(2.) The general manner of alluding to the Holy Spirit’s influence upon 
the writers of Scripture, founded upon the principle laid down in the pas- 
sages just considered, will appear from the following statements. The 
result of the Spirit's influence S. Justin M. terms “ Divine Inspiration : 7 
Πανταχόθεν τοίνυν εἰδέναι προσήκει, ὅτι οὐδαμῶς ἑτέρως περὶ Θεοῦ ἢ 
τῆς ὀρθῆς θεοσεβείας μανθάνειν οἷόν τε, ἢ παρὰ τῶν προφητῶν μόνον, 
τῶν Ota THC δας ἐπιπνοίας διδασκόντων tuac.— Cohort. ad 
Frec., ὃ 38, p. 35. 

And as to the Old Testament writers in general :—’Eyévovt6 τινὲς 


426 APPENDIX ἃ. 


πρὸ πολλοῦ χρόνου πάντων τούτων τῶν νομιζομένων φιλοσόφων πα: 
λαιότεροι, μακάριοι, καὶ δίκαιοι, καὶ θεοφιλεῖς, θείῳ Πνεύματι λαλήσαντες 
* * * προφήτας δὲ αὐτοὺς καλοῦσιν * * * μόνα ταῦτα εἰπόντες 
ἃ ἤκουσαν καὶ ἃ εἶδον, ᾿Αγίῳ πληρωθέντες Πνεύματι. Συγγράμματα 
δὲ αὐτῶν ἐτι καὶ νῦν drapéver.—Dial. cum Tryph., § 7, p. 109. 

Clemens Alex. (A.D. 192), speaking of those heretics (especially the 
Gnostics) who had excluded the prophetical books from their Canon, ob- 
serves :—Tavry οὖν οὐκ εὐσεβεῖς, δυσαρεστούμενοι ταῖς θείαις ἐντολαῖς, 
τουτέστι τῷ ᾿Αγίῳ ILvetwatet.—Strom. vii. c. 16, p. 898. 

The passage from Tertullian (A.D. 692) prefixed to Lecture i. continues 
as follows :—“ Viros enim justitia et innocentia dignos Deum nosse et os- 
tendere a primordio in seculum emisit Spiritu Divino inundatos quo pre- 
dicarent Deum unicum esse.” —Apolog., § xviii. p. 18. 

Similarly S, Augustine (A.D. 396): “Si igitur, ut oportet, nihil aliud 
intueamur in Scripturis illis, nisi quid per homines dixerit Dei Spiritus ”— 
De Civit, Dei, xviii, ὃ 48, t. vil. p. 526. 

And again :—“ Hic insinuatur nobis, ea loqui prophetas Dei que 
audiunt ab Eo, nihilque aliud esse prophetam Dei, nisi enunciatorem 
verborum Dei hominibus.".—Quest. in £z., libk 11. qu. 19, t. 1]. 

. 426. 

: Such statements, indeed, are merely developments of the doctrine laid 
down from the first, by the Apostolic Fathers, as to both the Apostles 
and the Prophets. §. Clement of Rome (A.D. 65) introduces a quotation 
from Ezekiel (xxxiii. 11) with the words :—Oi λειτουργοὶ τῆς χάριτος τοῦ 
Θεοῦ διὰ Πνεύματος ‘Ayiov περὶ μετανοίας ἐλάλησαν.--- (αὐ Corinth., 
§ viii. Of Jer. ix. 23, he writes :—ILovjowyev τὸ γεγραμμένον, λέγει yap 
τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ “Aycov.—ibid,, § xiii. Of Isai, lili, :- --Κ αθὼς τὸ Πν. τὸ 
"Ay. περὶ Αὐτοῦ éAdAncev.—ibid., § xvi. And of the New Testament 
writers he observes :—Oi ᾿Απόστολοι * * * πιστωθέντες ἐν τῷ 
λόγῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ, μετὰ πληροφορίας ἸΠνεύματος ‘Ayiov.—ibid., § xlii. 

So also S. Ignatius (A.D. 101) writes:—Oi γὰρ θειότατοι προφῆται 
κατὰ Χριστὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν ἔζησαν. Διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἐδιώχθησαν, Eur ved- 
μενοι ὑπὸ τῆς χάριτος Αὐτοῦ.---ρ. ad Magnes.,c. viii. (Cf. the pass- 
age quoted Lecture iii. p. 120, note .*) And as to the New Testament, he 
refers to 1 Cor. iii. 16; vi. 19, with the words:—T6 δὲ Πνεῦμα ἐκήρυσ- 
oev.— Ad Philadelph., § vii. 

(8.) Hence the Fathers, in opposition to the Gnostic heresy, infer the 
co-ordinate authority of the Old and the New Testament. 

Tertullian writes: “Hz sunt antitheses Marcionis, id est, contrarize 
oppositiones ; que conantur discordiam Evangelii cum Lege committere, 
ut ex diversitate sententiarum utriusque Instrumenti, diversitatem quoque 
argumententur Deorum.”—Adv. Marcion., lib. i. § 19, p. 443. 

S Irenzus argues to the same effect:—* Unde autem poterant pre- 
dicere prophete Regis adventum * * *_ si abaltero Deo propheticam 
Inspirationem acceperunt ?’— Cont. Her., lib. 1v. cap. xxxiv. p. 275. 

So also Origen: “Si qui sunt qui Spiritum S. alium quidem dicant 
esse qui fuit in Prophetis, alium autem qui fuit in Apostolis Domini nostri 
Jesu Christi, unum atque idem delictum impietatis admittunt, quod ili 
qui, quantum in se est, naturam Deitatis secant, et scindunt unum Legis 
et Evangeliorum Deum.”—Jn Tetum, iii. 10, t. iv. p. 695. 





APPENDIX 6. 427 


The doctrine of the primitive Church is thus summed up py S. Cyril 
of Jerusalem :—Mydele οὖν χωριζέτω τὴν παλαιὰν ἀπὸ τῆς Ka νῆς διαθή- 
κης. μηδεὶς λεγέτω ὅτι ἄλλο τὸ Πνεῦμα ἐκεῖ, καὶ ἄλλο ὧδε.͵ * * * 
οἴδαμεν τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον, τὸ λαλῆσαν ἐν προφήταις " καὶ ἐν τῇ Πεν- 
τηκοστῇ κατελθὸν ἐπὶ τοὺς ᾿Αποστόλους .---- Catech., xvi. § 4, p. 244. 

And this doctrine, as it has ever been maintained in the West, so it 
has been expressly repeated by that Father to whose opinions the Eastern 
Church pays the highest deference, 8. Joannes Damascenus (A.D. 730) ; 
who concludes, as follows, an enumeration of the Books of Scripture iden- 
tical with the Canon of the Anglican Church: Ei¢ ἐστιν ὁ Oedc, ὑπό 
τε παλαῖας διαθήκης καὶ καινῆς κηρυττόμενος, 6 ἐν Τριάδι ὑμνούμενός 
τε καὶ δοξαζόμενος, τοῦ Κυρίου φήσαντος, οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι τὸν 
νόμον, ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι ὃ * * καὶ τοῦ ᾿Αποστόλου εἰπόντος [scil. 
Heb.i. 1] * * * διὰ Πνεύματος τοίνυν ᾿Αγίου, 6 τε νόμος καὶ οἱ 
προφῆται, HvayyedAvotat καὶ ᾿Απόστολοι, ἐλάλησαν. Πᾶσα τοίνυν 
γραφὴ θεόπνευστος, πάντως καὶ ὠφέλιμος. ὥστε κάλλιστον καὶ ψυχο- 
φελέστατον ἐρευνᾷν τὰς θείας ypapdc.—De Fide Orthod., lib. iv. § 17, 
iis ps 282: 

(4.) The manner in which the Fathers specéally quote or refer to Serip- 
ture will appear from the following illustrations (cf. Lecture ii. p. 84, 
notes ἡ, ἡ, °) :— 

S. Clement of Rome thus quotes 1 Cor, 1. 10: ᾿Αναλάβετε τὴν ἐπι- 
στολὴν τοὺ μακαρίου Παύλονρ * * * ἐπ’ ἀληθείας πνευματικῶς 
[‘‘certe divinitus inspiratus.”"—Vet. Lat. Int.] ἐπέστειλεν ὑμῖν.--- Αἀ 
Corinth., ὃ xlvii. 

Tertullian, having quoted 1 Cor. iv. 9, with the words, “ Providentia 
Spiritus Sancti demonsiravit,” proceeds to comment on it with the pre- 
fatory remark: “ Verebatur nimirum tant# constantize vir, ne dicam 
Spiritus Sanctus,” &—Adv, Marcion., lib. v. § 7, p. 587. And he thus 
quotes 1 Tim, vi. 10: “Spiritus Domini per Apostolum pronuntiavit,”— 
De Patientia, § 7, p. 163. 

Theophilus of Antioch (A.D. 168) refers ἐπὶ τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς τοῦ κόσ- 
μου κτίσεως, ἣν ἀνέγραψε Μωσῆς ὃ θεράπων tov Θεοῦ, διὰ Πνεύ- 
ματος ‘Ayiov.—Ad Autolyc., lib. iii. § 23, p. 395. 

Clemens Al. writes: Διὰ τοῦτο dpa μυστικῶς τὸ ἐν τῷ ᾿Αποστόλῳ 
“Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα, τῇ τοῦ Κυρίου ἀποχρώμενον φωνῇ, dda ὑμᾶς ἐπότισα 
[1 Cor iti. 2], λέγει.----ἰ αἀαγοσ., lib. i. § 6, p. 127. 

S. Hippolytus, Bishop of Portus (A.D. 220), in a remarkable manner 
ascribes the quotation of the words of Isaiah in the New Testament, im- 
mediately to the Holy Ghost :—T6 Πνεῦμα τὸ “Αγιον [ἵνα φοβήσῃ,] ἐκ 
προσώπου των ᾿Αποστήλων διεμαρτύρατο, λέγων" Kal τίς ἐπίστευσεν τῇ 
ἀκοῇ ἡμῶν [188]. liii. 1; 5. John, xii. 88 ; Rom. x. 16.]—Cont Her, Noeti, 
§ 17 (ap. Routh. “ Script. Eccl. Opuse.,” t. i. p. 75.) 

S. Cyprian (A. D. 248): “ Loquitur in Scripturis Divinis Spiritus 
Sanctus.”—De Opere et Hleemos., p. 287. Again:—“Item beatus Apos- 
tolus Paulus Dominic inspirationis gratia plenus: ‘ Qui administrat? (2 
Cor. ix. 10), inquit,” &c.—Jbid., p. 240. So also :—*“ Denunciat Spiritus 
S. in Psalmis dicens : ‘ Deus qui inhabitare’ (Ps. Ixviii. 6),” &e&—De Uni- 
tate Hecl., p.196. And, “Per Apostolum premonet Spiritus S., et licit: 

Oportet et hzreses esse’ (1 Cor. xi. 19),” &¢.—Jbid., p. 111. 


᾿" 


428 APPENDIX 6. 


Eusebius Pamph. (A.D. 315) :—T0 Πνεῦμα τὸ Θεῖον ἐν προφητείαις, 
τὴν γενεὰν Αὐτοῦ, φησὶ, τίς διηγήσεται [Isai. lili]; * * * καὶ ὃ 
μέγας Μωῦὐσῆς, ὡς av προφητῶν ἁπάντων παλαιότατος, Θείῳ Πνεύματι 
ὑπογράφων, κ. τ. A—LHeel. Hist., lib. 1. cap. ii. p. 4. 

And to add the testimony of both East and West :—‘ How often,” 
asks S. Ephrem Syrus (A.D. 370) have we despised the warnings of Holy 
Scripture :-—"Q, τῶς τῶν γραφῶν ἀκούοντες ἐχλευάζομεν ; ἐκεῖ ὁ Θεὸς 
ἐλάλει διὰ πῶν γραφῶν, καὶ οὐ προσείχομεν .---- γι, secundum Domini Ad- 
vent., t. ti, p. 201. And 8. Jerome (A.D. 378) writes: “ Heretici quum 
ante crediderint in Scripturis, que a Spiritu S. conscripte sunt et edite, 
transferunt se ad novas doctrinas,” &e.—Comm. in Mich., cap. vit. lib. ii. 
t. vi. p. 520. 

(5.) The epithets applied to Scripture (see Lecture ii. p. 82) are next 
to be considered :— 

a. “Scripture given by Inspiration of God” (2 Tim. iii. 16.) From 
the countless passages in which this expression 1s employed, by all the 
Fathers, the following may be cited :-— 

Πᾶσαι ai θεόπνευστοι γραφαὶ Θεὸν τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ μηνύουσιν.---- 
Syn. Antioch adv. Paulum Samosat. (A.D. 270). (ap. Routh. “ Rel. 
Sacr.,” t. iti. p. 292.) 

S. Athanasius (A.D. 325) :---Πᾶσα μὲν, ὦ τέκνον, ἣ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς γραφὴ, 
παλαιά τε καὶ καινὴ, θεόπνευστός ἐστι, καὶ ὠφέλιμος πρὸς διδασ- 
καλίαν, ὡς yéyparta.—Epist. ad Marcellin., t. i. p. 982. 

And 5. Basil :—IIGoa γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος, διὰ 
τοῦτο συγγραφεῖσα παρὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος, ἵν᾽ ὥσπερ ἐν 
κοινῷ τῶν ψυχῶν ἰωατρείῳ, πάντες ἄνθρωποι τὸ ἴαμα τοῦ οἰκείου πά- 
θους ἕκαστος ἐκλεγώμεθα.--- Ποηι. in Psal.i., t.i. 90. Cf. the words of 
S. Gregory of Nyssa, quoted supra, Lecture vi. p. 241, note ὅ. 

β. Seripture is styled “ Spiritual ;” or “the words of the Spirit.” S. 
Ireneus writes :—"OAwy τῶν γραφῶν πνευματικῶν obodv.—Cont. Heres., 
lib. 4. cap. 28, p. 156. And Origen eloquently asks :—“ Vis tibi ostendam 
quomodo de verbis Spiritts 8. ignis exeat, et accendat corda credentium ? 
Audi dicentem David in Psalmo; ‘Eloquium Domini ignivit eum.’ 
* * * Tu ergo unde ardebis? Unde invenientur in te carbones ignis, 
qui nunquam Domini igniris eloquio, nunquam verbis Spiritis S. inflam- 
maris ?”—Jn Levit., Hom. ix. ὃ 9, t. ii. p. 248. 

And again: “Sed non possumus hoc dicere de S. Spiritts literis, quod 
aliquid in eis otiosum sit aut superfluum, etiamsi aliquibus videntur ob- 
scura. Sed hoc potius facere debemus, ut oculos rentis nostre convertamus 
ad Eum, qui hee seribi jussit.”.—Homil. in Num. xxvii., t. ii. p. 375. 

Or, as Clemens Al, expresses it: Τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ ‘Ayiov Πνεύματος σωτη- 
piwe eipnuéva.—Strom., vi. ὃ 15, p. 803. 

To the same effect Rufinus writes: “ Milites diviserunt sibi vestimenta 
Jesu: hoc etiam cure fuit Spiritui S. prophetarum vocibus protestari, cum 
dicit: ‘ Diviserunt sibi, ὅσο. | Ps, xxii. 18].”—Huxpos. in Symb. Apost. (ad 
calc, opp. S. Cypriani, p. cexvi). He also refers those who desire to in- 
quire particularly as to the doctrine of the Resurrection, “ad ipsos fontes 
Divinorum Voluminum.”—ZJérd., p. ecxviil. 

y. The epithet “ Divine” is used in different forms. The Presbyter 
Caius (A.D. 211), a leading opponent of Montanism, writes in a remark- 


« 


APPENDIX @G. 429 


avle passuge :—Kdv αὐτοῖς ᾿προτείνῃ τὶς ῥητὸν γραφῆς Cie 5 
καταλιπόντες δὲ τὰς ἁγίας τοῦ Θεοῦ γραφὰς Te dee yap ov 
πιστεύουσιν ᾿Αγίῳ Πνεύματι λελέχθαι τὰς θείας γραφὰς, καὶ εἰσὶν 
ἄπιστοι" ἢ ἑαυτοὺς ἡγούνται σοφωτέρους τοῦ ᾿Αγίου Πνεύματος ὑπαρ- 
yew Kat τί ἕτερον ἢ δαιμονῶσιν .--- Ῥανυ. Labyrinth. (ap. Routh. “ Rel. 
Sacr.,” t. il. p. 182. 

Origen’s fourth book, “De Principiis,” is entitled—IIept τοῦ θεοπ- 
νεύστου τῆς θείας γραφῆς. The question of Inspiration itself, however, 
he regards as so completely settled that he declines to dwell upon it at 
any length :-- μετὰ τὸ ὡς ἐν ἐπιδρο μῇ εἰρηκέναι περὶ τοῦ θεοτ- 
νεύστους εἷναι τὰς θείας γραφὰς, ἀναγκαῖον ἐπεξελθεῖν τῷ τρόπῳ τῆς 
ἀναγνώσεως καὶ νοήσεως αὐτῶν .---οδρ. viii, t. 1. p. 164. 

S. Cyprian writes: “In Apocalypsi Scriptura Divina declarat.””—Zpist, 
[Χ1Π]., Ὁ. 108. 

Tertulli: an, interpreting 1 Cor, xi. 5, observes: “Nec mirum, si Apos- 
tolus eodem ‘utique eae actus, quo cum omnis Scriptura Divina, tum 
et illa Genesis (ὁ. ii. 23) digesta est, eadem voce usus est mulierem po- 
nendo; quz exemplo Eve,” &e —De Oratione, cap. xxii. (ap. Routh. 
“ Seript. Eccl. Opuse.,” t.1. Ῥ. 114). 

“Orescens a Cirta [ap. Concil, Carthag.,* vii.] dixit: In tanto coetu 
sanctissimorum consicerdotum lectis literis Cypriani * * * que 
tan‘um in se sanctorum testimoniorum descendentium ex Scripturis Dei- 
Jficts continent,” &c. (ad calc. opp. 8S. Cypriani, p. 331). Cf. the use of 
the title “ Deifice” by the Martyr Felix, as well as of “ Dominice” by the 
Pagan Proconsul (proving the universality of such expressions), quoted 
Lecture ii. p. 93, note ’ 

Again: we find the expressions “Heavenly Scriptures :’—“ Non 
utique ex Scripturarum celestiwm vitio, que nunquam fallunt,” &e—No- 
vatianus (A.D. 251), De Trinitate, cap, xxx. (ed. Welchman); and 
“Scriptures of the Lord.” Clemens Al., speaking of those auditors who 
had been attracted from the schools of the Greeks, observes: ἥτε. TOV 
γραφῶν τῶν Κυριακῶν ἀνάγνωσις εἰς ἀπόδειξιν τῶν λεγομένων 
ἀναγκαΐία.----ϑέγοηι. νἹ. ὃ ii., p. 786 

8. Jerome writes: “ Non adeo me hebetis fuisse cordis, et tam crasse 
rusticitatis ut aliquid de Dominicis verbis aut corrigendum putaverim, aut 
non divinitus inspiratum.”—Ad Marcellam, Ep. xxvii. t. 1. p. 182. 

So also Tertullian : “‘ Evolverem Prophetias, si Dominus ipse tacuisset, 
nisi quod et Prophetizw, vor erant Domini.”—De Resurr. Carn., § xxii 
p. 394. 

And to the same effect :—“ Qui ergo putaveris nibil nos de salute Ca- 
sarum curare, inspice Dei voces, literas nostras * * * ‘Orate,’ inquit, 
‘pro regibus, et pro principibus, et potestatibus,’” &c.—Apolog., ὃ xxxi. 

. 80. 
: And again: “Communes sententias ab argumentationibus philosopho- 
rum liberare * * * reyocando quzstiones ad Ded literas.”—-De An- 
ima, § ii. p. 806. 


1 Mr. Westcott, in the “ Catena” appended to his ‘‘ Gospel Harmony,” has collected 
the following expressions employed in this Council: “Scripturze Sanctze” (δ, 6, 74); 
“Scriptures Deificee” (8); ‘Sancta et admirabilia Scripturarum verba” (31); ‘“ Divinge 
Scripture” (33). 


430 APPENDIX G. 


In like manner, Lactantius (A.D. 303) arguing that Vespasian had 
fulfilled Propheey by destroying Jerusalem: “ Confirmata sunt, que falsa 
et incredibilia putantur ab iis, quos vera celestium literarum doctrina non 
imbuit.”—Znst. Div., lib. 1v. cap. xxii. 

All which passages but express the following thought of S. Gregory 
of Neoces. (A.D. 254): Οὐ γὰρ ἐστὶ χωρὶς Νόμου καὶ Προφητῶν, 
ἦ Εὐαγγελιστῶν καὶ ᾿Αποστόλων ἔχω [ἔχειν], τῆν ἀκριβῆ τῆς σωτηρίας 
ἐλπίδα. διὰ γὰρ τῆς τῶν ἁγίων Προφητῶν, καὶ ᾿Αποστόλων γλώττης ὃ 
Κύριος ἡμῶν φθέγγεται * * ὅταν δὲ ἀναγινώσκεται τὸ Evay- 
γέλιον, ἡ ᾿Ἀποστολικὸν, μὴ προσεχῇς τῇ βίβλῳ, ἢ τῷ ἀναγινώσκοντι" 
ἀλλὰ τῷ ἀπ’ οὐρανοῦ φθεγγομένῳ OeG.—Sermo ii, in Annune., p. 19. 

δ. Still more strongly the Books of Scripture are termed “ Epistles 
from God to man.” In addition to the passage from S. Gregory the 
Great (A. D. 590), prefixed to Lecture ii., the following words of 5. Ma- 
carius Algypt. (A. D. 373) may be quoted: “Ὥσπερ βασιλεὺς γράψας 
ἐπιστολὰς, οἷς βούλεται κωδικέλους καὶ δωρεὰς ἰδίας χαρίσασθαι, 
σημαίνει πᾶσιν, ὅτι ταχέως σπουδάσατε πρός μὲ ὃ * * οὕτως καὶ 
τὰς θείας γραφὰς ὥσπερ ἐπιστολὰς ἀπέστειλεν ὃ Βασιλεὺς Θεὸς τοῖς 
ἀνθρώποις .--- ΠΠοηυϊί. xxxix. p. 208. 

(6.) As the result of such principles, the Church inferred, as I have 
already observed (Lecture ii. p. 83), “ the sufficiency, the infallible certainty, 
and the perfection of Scripture.’ In addition to the opinions there ad- 
duced (notes ? and *), the following may be cited :— 

Tertullian writes: “ Adoro Scripture plenitudinem, qua mihi et Fac- 
torem manifestat et facta. * ** * Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis 
officina. Si non est scriptum, timeat Vz illud, adjicientibus aut detrahen- 
tibus destinatum.”—Adv. Hermogen. ὃ 22, p. 277. 

S. Hippolytus enforces the same lesson: Εἰἷς Θεὸς, ὃν οὐκ ἄλλοθεν 
ἐπιγινώσκομεν, ἢ ἐκ TOV ἁγίων γραφῶν. “Ov yap τρόπον ἐάν τις Bov- 
ληθῇ τὴν σοφίαν τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου ἀσκεῖν, οὐκ ἄλλως δυνήσεται τού- 
του τυχεῖν, ἐὰν μὴ δόγμασι φιλοσόφων ἐντύχῃ, τὸν αὐτὸν δὴ τρόπον 
ὅσοι θεοσέβειαν ἀσκεῖν βουλόμεθα, οὐκ ἄλλοθεν ἀσκήσομεν 
ἢ ἐκ τῶν λογίων τοῦ Θεοῦ * * * Μὴ κατ᾽ ἰδίων προαίρεσιν, μηδὲ 
kat’ ἴδιον νοῦν, μηδὲ βιαζόμενοι τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ δεδομένα. ἀλλ᾽ ὃν 
τρόπον Αὐτὺς ἐβουλήθη διὰ τῶν ἁγίων γραφῶν δεῖξαι, οὕτως ἴδωμεν .---- 
Cont. Noett. Her., § ix. (ap. Routh. “Script. Eccl. Opuse.,” vol. i. p. 64). 

S. Hilary of Poitiers (A. D. 354) : “ Quid enim infidelibus stultius est, 
qui preter illum communem irreligiosorum errorem etiam hoe adjiciunt 
piaculi, ut Divina Scripturarum eloquia putent perfecte doctrine carere 
ratione? * * * Verum quamvis * * * his qui sapientiam Dei 
sequuntur cognitam dictorum celestium perfectionem existimem, nihilque 
eorum esse, quod non consummatum atque omni ex parte perfectum sit,” 
&e.— Tract. in Psal. exviii., τ. i. p. 814. 

Novatianus : “ Scriptura czlesti abundans plenitudine.”—De T’rinitate, 
cap. XXIV. 

The following is the conclusion of S. Joannes Damascen. :—Ava 
vojov δὲ, Kal προφητῶν πρότερον, ἔπειτω δὲ Kal διὰ τοῦ povoyevod¢ 
αὐτοῦ Υἱοῦ, Κυρίου δὲ, καὶ Θεοῦ, καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. 
κατὰ τὸ ἐφικτὸν ἡμῖν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἐφανέρωσε γνῶσιν πάντα τοίνυν τὰ 
παραδεδομένα ἡμῖν διά τε νόμου, καὶ προφητῶν, καὶ ᾿Αποστόλων. καὶ 


APPENDIX G. 431 


Ἐνυαγγελιστῶν δεχόμεθα, καὶ γινώσκομεν, καὶ σέβομεν, οὐ δὲν Ta- 
ραιτέρω τούτων ἐπιζητοῦντες.--1).ε fide Ογίμοάοχα, lib. 
i, cap. 1, t. i, p: 129: 

(7.) In fine, “the joint participation of the Eternal Word and of the 
Holy Spirit in bringing the Scriptures into being, was a truth fully ap- 
preciated by the Fathers” (see Lecture ii. p. 83). 

The principle on which such statements were founded is thus laid 
down by S. Athanasius :— 

Καὶ ὅτε μὲν λέγει ἡ γραφὴ, ὅτι Πνεῦμα ἽἍΛγιον ἐλάλει ἐν τοῖς προ- 
φήταις, ἀλλαχοῦ λέγει 6 μακάριος ἸΤαῦλος, ὅτι ὃ Πατὴρ ἐλάλει ἐν τοῖς 
προφήταις [Heb. 1.1] * * * καὶ ἀλλαχοῦ λέγει, ὅτι ὁ Υἱὸς λαλεῖ 
2 Cor. xiii, 8] * * * ὁ δὲ Yidc, τὸ Πνεῦμα εἷπε το λαλοῦν ἐν τοῖς 
ἠποστόλοις [S. Matt. x. 20, and S. Luke, xii. 12] * * * ὁρᾷς ὅτι 
ἅπερ ἐστὶν ἔργα τοῦ ἸΠατρὺς, ταῦτα λέγει ἡ γραφὴ τοῦ Ὑἱοῦ εἶναι, καὶ 
τοῦ ᾿Αγίου Ivetpatoc.—De Incarnat. cap. xiv., t. i. p. 881. (Cf. also the 
similar statements zbid., cap. xviii. p. 884; and the words quoted supra, p. 
83, note *.) 

According to Tertullian: “Regula est autem fidei * * * qua 
ereditur: Unum omnino Deum esse * * * qui universa de ni- 
hilo produxerit, per Verbum Suum * * * Id Verbum, Filium Ejus 
appellatum, in nomine Dei varie visum a patriarchis, in prophetis semper 
auditum,” &¢.—De Preser. Heret. ὃ 13, p. 235 (cf. Lecture ii. p. 118, 
ὧς.) So also: “ Nos quidem certi, Christum semper in prophetis locu- 
tum.”— Adv. Marcion. lib. iii. § 6., p. 481. (Cf. abid., lib. iv. § 13, p 
519.) While, at the same time, he writes: “De illuminatione mundi, 
quis Christo ait, ‘Posui Te in lumen nationum, &e. * * * Cui re- 
spondet Spiritus in Psalmo,” &c.—Jbid. lib. v. § 11, p. 598. 

S. Irenzeus writes: “Est autem Hic, Verbum Kjus, Dominus noster 
Jesus Christus ὃ * * Et propterea prophetze ab eodem Verbo pro- 
pheticum accipientes Charisma, preedicaverunt Ejus scundum carnem ad- 
ventum * * * Quoniam ergo Spiritus Dei per prophetas futura 
significavit,” &e.—Cont. Her. lib. tv. cap. xx., p. 254. (Cf. the words 
prefixed to Lecture i.; and Lecture iii. p. 118, note *. See also p. 120, 
note ὅ. 

Clemens Alex. refers to Jer. 1. 20, with the words: ἀφίησι τε τὰς 
ἁμαρτίας ὃ φωτίζων Λόγος" Kat ἐν τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ, φησὶν ὁ Κύριος, 
ζητήσουσιν Kk. τ. A.—Strom. ii. § 14, p. 463. While, quoting Jer. xxiii. 
25, 24, he equally represents the Holy Ghost as the speaker: Μᾶλλον δὲ 
ἐν “Ἱερεμίᾳ τὸ “Ay. ILvedua.—Cohort. ad Gent. cap. vill. p. 66. Again: 
Ὃ νόμος διὰ Μωσέως ἐδόθη" οὐχὶ ὑπὸ Μωσέως, ἀλλὰ ὑπὸ μὲν τοῦ 
Λόγου, διὰ Μωσέως δὲ θεράποντος AvTov.—Pedag. lib. i. cap. Vii. 
Ρ. 134. While he also writes, quoting Deut. xxxii. 10-12: Λέγει δέ πον 
διὰ τῆς φδῆς TO Πνεῦμα τὸ “Aylov kK. τ. A—Lbid. ο. 7, p. 181. 

Origen argues that Celsus should in fairness have stated the very ex- 
pressions of the prophecies :—Hir’ ἐν αἷς Θεὸς παντοκράτωρ ἐπηγέλλετο 
εἶναι 6 λέγων, εἴτ᾽ ἐν αἷς 6 Ὑἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, εἴτε καὶ ἐν αἷς τὸ Πνεῦμα 
τὸ Ἅγιον λέγον εἷναι éxtotevero.— Cont. Celsum, lib. vii. § 10, Ὁ. i. p. 
700. And he elsewhere writes: “Christus, Dei Verbum, in Moyse atque 

rophetis erat. Nam sine Verbo Dei quomodo poterant prophetare de 
Christo? Ad cujus rei probationem non esset difficile ex Divinis Scrip- 


432 APPENDIX ἃ. 


turis ostendere, quomodo vel Moyses vel prophetee Spiritu Christi repleti, 
yel locuti sunt vel gesserunt,” &e.—De Princip. lib. i. § 1, t. i. p. 47. 

Hence were derived the titles Χριστοφόροι and Πνευματοφόροι applied, 
indifferently, to the sacred writers (see supra, p. 83, note *). It may be 
well to add that S. Ephreem Syrus, enumerating the different sacred writers, 
refers to them as οἱ θεοφόροι : and that he calls David 6 θεόφατος. In 
secundum Domini Advent., Ὁ. 11. p. 202. 

Compare, too, the language of Athenagoras :—Av’ αὐτῶν τῶν δογμά- 
των οἷς προσέχομεν οὐκ ἀνθρωπινοῖς οὗσιν, ἀλλὰ θεοφάτοις καὶ 
θεοδιδάκτοις.---εσ. pro Christ. ὃ xi., p. 288. (see, supra, p. 429). 

II. The second division of the subject embraces the allusions, by the 
Fathers, to “ the effect of the Divine influence upon the intellectual facul- 
ties of the prophets.” The notion that, while giving utterance to their 
predictions, the prophets were sunk in a state of unconsciousness, has 
been shown, in the Fifth of the preceding Discourses, to have been repug- 
nant to the general teaching of the primitive Church. Nothing more, 
therefore, is necessary here than (1) to give a Catena of those passages in 
which the Fathers have employed a material similitude to illustrate the 
effect of the Divine influence upon the souls of those “ holy men of old, 
who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost ;” and (2) to adduce 
some examples which exhibit the Church’s belief in the coexistence of 
the human with the Divine Intelligence. (See Lecture vi. p. 263, &c.) 

(1) The similitudes employed may be arranged under two classes : (@) 
those founded upon the analogy of a musical instrument, and obviously 
suggested by the primary sense of the word “ Spirit,” (“ breath,” πνεῦμα) : 
and (6) material similitudes of any kind. 

(a) Similitudes, founded upon the analogy of a musical instrument, 
and suggested by the etymology of the word “ Inspiration ?’— 

S. Justin Martyr:—Oite γὰρ φύσει, οὔτ᾽ ἀνθρωπίνῃ ἐννοίᾳ οὕτω 
μεγάλα καὶ θεῖα γινώσκειν ἀνθρώποις δυνατόν: ἀλλὰ τῇ ἄνωθεν ἐπὶ 
τοὺς ἁγίους ἄνδρας τηνικαῦτα κατελθούσῃ δωρεᾷ, οἷς οὐ λόγων ἐδέησ“ 
τέχνης * * * ἀλλὰ καθαροὺς ἑαυτοὺς τῇ τοῦ Θείον Πνεύματος 
παρασχεῖν ἐνεργείᾳ, iv’ αὐτὸ τὸ θεῖον ἐξ οὐρανοῦ κατιὸν πλῆκτρον, 
ὥσπερ ὀργάνῳ κιθάρας τινὸς ἢ λύρας, τοῖς δικαίοις 
ἀνδράσι χρώμενον, τὴν τῶν θείων ἡμῖν καὶ οὐρανίων ἀποκαλύψῃ γνῶσιν. 
--Ὀλονί. ad Gree. ὃ viii., p. 18. 

Athenagoras expressly develops the idea suggested by the term 
Πνεῦμα :---Νομίζω καὶ ὑμᾶς φιλομαθεστάτους καὶ ἐπιστημονεστάτους 
ὄντας, οὐκ ἀνοήτους γεγονέναι οὔτε τοῦ Μωσέως, οὔτε τοῦ ‘Hoaiov, καὶ 
Ἱερεμίου, καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν προφητῶν, οἱ κατ᾽ ἔκστασιν τῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς 
λογισμῶν κινήσαντος αὐτοὺς τοῦ Θείου Πνεύματος, ἃ ἐνηγοῦντο ἐξεφώ- 
νησαν: συγχρησαμένου τοῦ Πνεύματος ὡσεὶ καὶ αὐ - 
λητὴς αὐλὸν éEunvetoat—tLeyg. pro Christianis, § ix. p. 286. 
To which statement may be added the foliowing, where the same com- 
parison is given under the form of a musical instrument (dpydvor) in 
general (cf. the quotations of class (b) ) :—'Hyete δὲ, ὧν νοοῦμεν Kai 
πεπιστεύκαμεν, ἔχομεν προφήτας μάρτυρας, δι Πνεύματι ἐνθέῳ [ἔνθεοι] 
ἐκπεφωνήκασι καὶ περὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ περὶ τῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ. εἴποιτε δ᾽ ἣν 
καὶ ὑμεῖς, συνέσει καὶ τῇ περὶ τὸ ὄντως Θεῖον εὐσεβείᾳ τοὺς ἄλλους 
προὔχοντες, ὡς ἔστιν ἄλογον, παραλι τόντας πιστεύειν τῷ τ τρὰ τοῖ 


APPENDIX G. 433 


Θεοῦ Πνεύματι, Oc ὄργανα κεκινηκότι τὰ τῶν προφητῶν στόματα, 
ποοσέχειν δόξαις ἀνθρωπίναις .---- διά. § vii., p. 285. (See supra, p. 86, 
note *. 

nee Alex. :—'O δὲ ἐκ Δαβὶδ, καὶ πρὸ αὐτοῦ, 6 τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγος͵ 
λύραν μὲν καὶ κιθάραν, τὰ ἄψυχα ὄργανα, ὑπεριδών" κόσμον δὲ τόνδε, 

καὶ δὴ καὶ τὸν σμικρὸν κόσμον, τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ψυχήν τε καὶ σῶμα av- 
τοῦ, ᾿Αγίῳ Πνεύματι ἁρμοσάμενος, ψάλλει τῷ Θεῷ, διὰ τοῦ πολυφώνου 
ὀργάνου, καὶ προσάδει τούτῳ τῷ ὀργάνῳ, τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ: σὺ γὰρ el κιθάρα, 
καὶ αὐλὸς καὶ ναὺς ᾿Ἔμός: κιθάρα, διὰ τὴν ἁρμονίαν: αὐλὸς, διὰ τὸ 
Πνεῦμα: ναὺς, διὰ τὸν Λόγον" tv’ ἡ μὲν, κρέκῃ: τὸ δὲ, ἐμπν ἔῃ" ὁ δὲ 
χωρήσῃ τὸν Képtov.—Cohort. ad Gentes, c. i. p. 5. And to the same 
effect :—Aiveite αὐτὸν ἐν wadrnpiw ὅτι ἡ γλῶττα τὸ ψαλτήριον 
Κυρίου. καὶ ἐν κιθάρᾳ αἰνεῖτε αὐτον: κιθάρα νοείσθω τὸ στόμα, 
οἱονεὶ πλήκτρῳ κρούομενον τῷ Πνεύματι. -- αάαρφο- 
gus, lib. τι. ὁ. iv. p. 198. 

S. Hippolytus Portuens. (see, supra, p. 425):—Obro yap Ivev- 
ματι προφητικῷ οἱ πατέρες κατηρτισμένοι, Kat ὑπ’ Αὐτοῦ τοῦ 
Λόγου ἀξίως τετιμημένοι, ὀργάνων δίκην ἑαυτοῖς ἡνωμένοι, ἔχοντες ἐν 
ἑαυτοῖς ἀεὶ τὸν Λόγον ὡς πλῆκτρον, δι᾽ οὗ κι- 
νούμενοι ἀπήγγελλον ταῦτα, ἅπερ ἤθελεν 6 Θεὸς, οἱ προφῆται. οὐ 
γὰρ ἐξ ἰδίας δυνάμεως ἐφθέγγοντο, μὴ πλανῶ [al. ὡς πλά- 
νοι] οὐδὲ ἅπερ αὐτοὶ ἐβούλοντο, ταῦτα ἐκήρυττον, ἀλλὰ πρῶτον μὲν διὰ 
τοῦ Λόγου ἐσοφίζοντο ὀρθῶς, ἔπειτα δι’ ὁραμάτων προεδιδάσκοντο τὰ 
μέλλοντα καλῶς: εἶθ᾽ οὕτω πεπεισμένοι ἔλεγον ταῦτα, ἅπερ αὐτοῖς ἦν 
μόνοις ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀποκεκρυμμένα.---1)6 Antichristo, cap. 11. p. 5. 

S. Ephrem Syr.:—‘ Praise thou the Lord of all, Who fashioned and 
strung for Himself two lyres, that of the Prophets, and also of the Apos- 
tles. Thus one finger struck the two distinct sounds of the two Cove- 
nants. And yet, though the lyre hath different sounds, it is the same 
lyre and the same player; the lyres of Truth also, my son, have different 
sounds, though the Truth be one.”—Rythm, xxii. (“Select Works, transl. 
out of the original Syriac,” by the Rev. J. B. Morris, Oxf. 1847, p. 178). 

S. Macarius Aigypt., having treated allegorically the history of the 
deliverance from Pharaoh’s bondage, proceeds to say :--- [ὃ Πνεῦμα ὅπερ 
ἔλαβε [scil. ἡ ψυχή] καινὸν dowa τῷ Θεῷ ἄδει διὰ τοῦ τυμπάνου ἤγουν τοῦ 
σώματος, καὶ τῶν τῆς κιθάρας ἤτοι ψυχῆς λογικῶν χορδῶν καὶ λεπτο- 
τάτων λογισμῶν, καὶ τοῦ πλήκτρου τῆς θείας χάριτος, καὶ 
ἀναπέμπει αἴνους τῷ ζωοποιῷ Χριστῷ. ὡς γὰρ διὰ τοῦ αὐλοῦ, 
τὸ Πνεῦμα διερχόμενον λαλεῖ: οὕτω διὰ τῶν ἁγιων 
καὶ πνευματοφόρων ἀνθρώπων τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ “Αγιόν ἐστιν 
ὑμνοῦν, καὶ ψάλλον, καὶ προσευχόμενον τῷ Θεῷ ἐν καθαρᾷ καρόΐᾳ.-- 
Homil. xlvii., p. 232. 

5. Chrysostom repeats the title, the “Lyre of the Spirit,” by which, as 
already quoted (Lecture ii. p. 88, note °), he was wont to designate S, Paul. 
His Homil; on 1 Tim. ν. 23 (“ Drink no longer water, but use a little wine, 
for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities”) commences with words 
in which the same simile is combined with one still more closely allied to 
tne idea of Inspiration: ᾿Ηκούσατε τῆς ἀποστολικῆς φωνῆς, τῆς TGA - 
πιγγος τῆς ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν, τῆς λύρας τῆς πνευματικῆς; * * * 
οὖ γὰρ ἡμέτερα τὰ λεγόμενα, ἀλλ᾽ ἅπερ ἂν ἡ τοῦ Πνεύματος ἐμπνεύσῃ 

28 


434 APPENDIX 6. 


γάρις Ὁ * * Νὴ τοίνυν μηδὲ τὰ νομιζόμενα εἷναι ψιλὰ τῶν γραφῶν 
νοήματα παρατρέχωμεγ .---- (αὶ pop. Antioch. Hom, i., t. ἢ. p.1. And else- 
where, with another form of illustration, he enters more fully into the 
grounds of such _ comparisons :—Tovtov τοῦ στόματος ἐβουλόμην τὴν 
κόνιν ἰδεῖν, δι’ οὗ τὰ μεγάλα καὶ ἀπόῤῥητα ὁ Χριστὸς ἐλάλησε, Mik να τς 
δι’ οὗ τὸ Πνεῦμα τῇ οἰκουμένῃ τοὺς θαυμαστοὺς ἐκείνους χρησμοὺς 
EOGKEL NN Hee he "Apa ’Exeivov [scil. τοῦ Χριστοῦ] καρδία ἣν ἡ ἸΠαύ- 
Aov καρδία, καὶ τοῦ Πνεύματος τοῦ ᾿Αγίου πλάξ ---Ἴι 
Lpist. ad Rom, Hom, xxxii., t. ix. p. 1ὅ8. The following words apply this 
principle to the sacred writers in general :--- Ὅταν δὲ Παῦλον εἴπω, οὐ 
τοῦτον μόνον λέγω, ἀλλὰ καὶ Πέτρον, καὶ Ἰάκωβον, καὶ ᾿Ιωάννην, καὶ 
πάντα αὐτῶν τὸν χορόν. “Καθάπερ γὰρ ἐν λύρᾳ μιᾷ διάφοροι 
μὲν αἱ νευραὶ, μία δὲ ἡ συμφωνία" οὕτω καὶ ἐν τῷ χορῷ τῶν ᾿Αποστόλων 
διάφορα μὲν τὰ πρόσωπα, μία δὲ ἡ διδασκαλία, ἐπειδὴ καὶ εἷς ὃ τεχνίτης 
ἢ» τὸ ILvetpa τὸ “Αγιον τὸ κινοῦν τὰς ἐκείνων ψυχάς .--- 
Hom. in S. Ignat. M,, t. ii. p. 594, 

A comparison of the illustrations thus employed by S. Chrysostom, 
according to which the sacred writers may appear to have been regarded. 
by him as merely passive instruments, with his remarks on their unadorned 
style of writing (quoted, swpra, Lecture vii. p. 326, note *), clearly exem- 
plifies his appreciation of that co-existence of the human and the Divine 
Intelligence, to be presently considered, which forms so important an ele- 
ment of any just view of Inspiration. 

(5) The comparisons employed by Theophilus of Antioch are founded 
upon the general idea of a musical instrument :— 

Oi δὲ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι, πνευματοφόροι Πνεύματος ‘Ayiov καὶ 
προφῆται γενόμενοι, ὑπ’ Αὐτοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐμπνευσθέντες, καὶ 
σοφισθέντες, ἐγένοντο θεοδίδακτοι, καὶ ὅσιοι, καὶ δίκαιοι" διὸ καὶ κατη- 
ξιώθησαν τὴν ἀντιμισθίαν ταύτην λαβεῖν, ὄργανα Θεοῦ γενόμε- 
vot.—Ad Autolye. lib. i. § ix, Ρ. 354. 

And again -—ObTo¢ οὖν ὧν Πνεῦμα Θεοῦ, καὶ ἀρχὴ καὶ σοφία, καὶ 
OS ὑψίστου, κατήρχετο εἰς τοὺς προφήτας, καὶ δι’ αὐτῶν ἐλάλει 

Bey ΩΝ τὰ Σολομῶνος προφήτου οὕτω λέγει" ἡνίκα δὴ ἡτοίμασε 
τὸν οὐρανὸν, συμπαρήμην Αὐτῷ. kK. τ. A. [Prov. vili.]. Μωσῆς δὲ ὃ καὶ 
Σολομῶνος πρὸ πολλῶν ἐτῶν γενόμενος μᾶλλον δὲ ὁ Λόγος ὃ τοῦ Θεοῦ 
ὡς δι’ ὀργάνου δι’ αὐτοῦ, φησίν" ἐν ἀρχῇ k.7.A.[Gen. i. 1.] 
—Ibid. ὃ x., p. 355. 

S. Basil :—'O μὲν yap παρέχων ἑαυτὸν ἄξιον ὄργανον τῇ 
ἐνεργείᾳ τοῦ Πνεύματος, προφήτης éotiv—Comm. in EKsar. 
Procem. § i., t. i. p. 378. 

The important adjective “rational” (λογικός) i is added by the author of 
a treatise, entitled “Synopsis Prophetiarum,” published by D. Hossehelne 
in his edition (Aug. Vind. 1602) of “ Adriani Isagoge” (A. D. 433) :- 
Κυρίως προφῆται καὶ ἀληθῶς, οἱ πάλαι παρὰ τοῖς “Ἑβραίοις, ὡς τοῦ 
ἀληθινοῦ Πνεύματος λογικὰ καὶ προαιρετικὰ Opyava,—p. 29. 
Compare also the use of the same term by S. Macarius in the passage 
quoted under class (a), p. 433, supra. 

The expression of the Psalmist, My tongue is the pen of a ready 
writer” —Ps. xlv. 1, atfords a constant illustration, 

Theodore’ - Προφήτου δὲ ἴδιον, τὸ τὴν γλῶτταν ὑπουργὸν παρέχειν 


APPENDIX G. 435 


τῇ τοῦ Πνεύματος χάριτι, κατὰ τὴν ἐν τοῖς ψαλμοῖς φερομένην φωνὴν, 
ἡ γλῶσσά μον, φησὶ, κάλαμος γραμματέως ὀξυγράφου .---- γοίμθογία in 
Psalm., t. i. p. 896. 

Procopius Gazeus’ (A. D. 620) :---ὥσπερ yap ὑπηρέτης βασιλικὸς 
βασιλέως φωνὴν ὑποκρίνεται. ἐκέλευσα λέγων, ἐδωρησάμην, οὕτως οἱ 
προφῆται καθάπερ κάλαμον τὴν γλῶτταν ὀξυγράφῳ παρέχονται ypap- 
patel, κατὰ τὸν μέγαν AaBid.—Pref. in Genes. (ap. A. Mai, t. vi. p. 2). 

S. Gregory the Great writes in continuation of the words cited, supra, 
p- 82, note * :—“TIpse igitur hee scripsit, qui scribenda dictavit. Ipse serip- 
sit, qui et in Illius opere Inspirator extitit, et per scribentis vocem imitanda 
ad nos ejus facta transmisit. Si magni cujusdam viri susceptis epistolis 
legeremus verba, sed quo calamo fuissent scripta, queereremus ; ridiculum 
profecto esset, epistolarum auctorem scire, sensumque cognoscere, sed quali 
calamo earum verba impressa fuerint indagare. Cum ergo rem cognosci- 
mus, ejusque rei Spiritum S, auctorem tenemus, quia scriptorem queerimus, 
quid aliud agimus nisi legentes literas, de calamo percontamur ?”—Pref. 
tn Moral. in Job, t. 1. p. 7. 

Other comparisons are instituted, of which the following instances 
must suffice :—S. Augustine, answering the objection, “Cur Ipsius Christi 
nulla scripta?” says, in conclusion: “ Itaque cum illi scripserunt, que 1116 
ostendit et dixit, nequaquam dicendum est quod Ipse non scripserit : quan- 
doquidem membra jus id operata sunt, quod dictante Capite cognoverunt. 
Quidquid enim Ille de Suis factis et dictis nos legere voluit, hoc scribendum 
Illis tamquam Suis manibus imperavit. Hoe unitatis consortium et in 
diversis officiis concordium membrorum sub uno capite ministerium quis- 
quis intellexerit, non aliter accipiet quod narrantibus Discipulis Christi in 
Evangelio legerit, quam si ipsam manum Domini, quam in proprio Corpore 
gestabat, scribentem conspexerit.”.—De Consens. Huang. lib. 1. cap. xxXxv., 
t. iil. par. ii, p. 26. The following, not unusual, simile may be added :— 
“Has Domini sanctas Quadrigas, quibus per orbem vectus subigit populos 
leni suo jugo et sarcine levi,” &c.—Zbid. lib. 1. cap. vil., p. 6. 

And 5. Jerome writes :—“ Matthzus, Marcus, Lucas, et Joannes, Qua- 
driga Domini et verum Cherubim. * * * Tenent se mutuo, sibique 
perplexi sunt, et quasi rota in rota volvuntur, et pergunt quocumque eos 
flatus 8. Spiritus perduxerit.,— Ad Paulinum, Ep. Ini. t. i. p. 278. 

(2.) The co-existence of the human and the Divine Intelligence is 

1 A curious example of the manner in which a translator sometimes improves 
upon the sense of his author is supplied by the remains of Procopius. Quenstedt 
“Theologia Didactico-Polemica,” cap. iv. § 2, Ρ. 55) quotes the following passage 
rom the ‘‘Comment. in Octateuchum” of Procopius, with which he was acquainted 
only through the Latin Version (‘‘ap. Gesneros fratres,” s. a.):—‘Oportet eum, qui 
operam daturus est Scripturze Sacre, non accipere illa que ibi traduntur, quasi pro- 
veniant ex hominibus: altius initium sive principium spectandum -reor: firmiter 
credat necesse est, illa sacrosancta dogmata ex Ipso originem sumere Deo, et inde per 
homines quasi canales seu instrumentum ad nos promanare.”—Pref. in Genes. p. 1. 
This language, so utterly foreign from the style and tone of thought of any other 
writer of that age, is at once shown to be solely attributable to the translator by the 
publication, in the original Greek, of the ‘‘ Comm. in Ges.” of Procopius, as far as ch. 
Xviii., in Card. Mai’s edition, “ Classicorum Auctorum” (Rom, 1834, t. vi.) ;—-where 
the original of the entire passage, just quoted, is simply as follows:—Aei τὸν προσιόντα 
τῇ θείᾳ γραφῇ, μὴ ὡς ἀνθρώπων εἰπόντων, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς Θεοῦ δι’ αὐτῶν φθεξαμένου τῶν 
εἰρημένων ἀκούειν .---- ΓΟ. cit. p. 2—in which the words “per homines quasi canales" 
are represented merely by δι’ αὐτῶν. ‘ 


436 APPENDIX . 


clearly implied in numerous passages, as examples of which the following 
general statement may be cited :— 

Ἱερεμίας δὲ 6 προφήτης, ὃ πάνσοφος, μᾶλλον δὲ ἐν “Ἱερεμίᾳ τὸ “Αγεον 
Πνεῦμα, ἐπιδείκνυσι τὸν Θεόν" kK, τ. A.—Clemens Al., Cohort. ad Gentes, 
ὁ. vili. p. 66. Such, also, is the language in which Origen expresses his 
belief that S. Matthew’s account of the healing of the two blind men at 
Jericho (ch, xx. 30) is not in contradiction to the accounts of 8. Mark and 
S. Luke :—Eizep ἀκριβῶς πιστεύομεν ἀναγεγράφθαι, συνεργοῦντος 
καὶ τοῦ ᾿Αγίου Πνεύματος, τὰ Εὐαγγέλια .---- Comm. in Mattheum, t. iii. 
Ρ. 732. Compare, too, the words of Eusebius, which form the continuation 
of the passage prefixed to Lecture vil. :—T7 dé τοῦ Θείου Πνεύματος τοῦ 
συνεργοῦντος αὐτοῖς ἀποδείξει, κ. τ. A.—loc. cit. p. 116. 

But this conclusion is brought out still more plainly by the manner in 
which the Fathers reject the idea, that the condition of the sacred writers, 
when under the influence of Inspiration, at all resembled that state of un- 
consciousness which the Montanists represented as the essence of true 
Prophecy. In addition to the passages cited in Lecture v. p. 191, &ec., the 
following may be given :— 

S. Basil (if, indeed, the commentary on Isaiah be his) writes of the 
notion, put forward, by some, as to the ecstatic state of Isaiah and Eze- 
kiel :---Φασὶ δέ τινες ἐξεστηκότας αὐτοὺς προφητεύειν, ἐπικαλυπτομένου 
τοῦ ἀνθρωπείου νοῦ Tapa τοῦ Πνεύματος. τοῦτο δὲ παρὰ τὴν ἐπαγγε- 
λίαν ἐστὶ τῆς θείας ἐπιδημίας, Exppova ποιεῖν τὸν θεόληπτον, καὶ ὅτε 
πλήρης γέγονε τῶν θείων διδαγμάτων, τότε καὶ τῆς οἰκείας 
ἐξίστασθαι dravoiacg.—Comm. in Esai. t. i. p. 381. 

S. Chrysostom briefly, but completely, points out the distinction :— 
Τοῦτο yap μάντεως ἴδιον, τὸ ἐξεστηκέναι, TO ἀνάγκην ὑπομένειν, TO 
ὠθεῖσθαι, τὸ ἕλκεσθαι, τὸ σύρεσθαι ὥσπερ μαινόμενον. Ὃ δὲ προφήτης 
οὐχ οὕτως, ἀλλὰ μετὰ διανοίας νηφούσης, καὶ σωφρονούσης καταστάσεως, 
καὶ εἰδὼς ἃ φθέγγεται, φησὶν dnavta—Iln Epist. ad 
1 Cor, xu, Hom, xxix ἔν ΣΧ. ᾿- 269: 

The condition of the Prophets is thus clearly described by S. Gregory 
the Great :—“Scriptores igitur sacri eloquii, quia impulsu S. Spiritu: 
agitantur, sic de se in illo testimonium tanquam de aliis proferunt. Erge 
S. Spiritus per Moysen locutus est de Moyse: S. Spiritus per Johannem 
locutus est de Johanne. Paulus quoque quia non ex se ipso loqueretur, 
insinuat dicens: ‘An experimentum queritis Kjus qui in me loquitur 
Christus.’ [2 Cor. xiii. 3.] * * * Itaque scriptores sacri eloquii, quia 
repleti S. Spiritu super se trahuntur, quasr extra semetipsos fiunt: et sie 
de se sententias, quasi de aliis, proferunt. Unde et beatus Job S. Spiritu 
afflatus, potuit sua gesta, que erant videlicet superne aspirationis dona, 
quasi non sua scribere: quia eo alterius erant que loquebatur, quo homo 
loquebatur que Dei sunt: et eo alter que erant illius loquebatur, quo 
Spiritus S. loquebatur que hominis sunt.”—Pref. in Moral. mn Job 
ΠῚ pad: 

The opinions of 8. Jerome are well known, and are to be seen in his 
different “ Prefaces,” usually prefixed to the editions of the Vulgate :—cf. 
e. g., his words quoted, supra, p. 192, note *. 

The following statement of the same principle occurs in the “ Synopsis 
Prophetiarum” already quoted (p. 484) :— 


APPENDIX 6. 437 


Πολλάκις δὲ καὶ διὰ τὴν τοῦ λέγοντος περὶ τὸ ἀγγέλλειν ἰδιότητα, 
γίνεται ἀσάφεια. ὡς καὶ ἐνταῦθα" [seil. Ex. xxv.; Ezek. xl.] τὸ μὲν νεῦμα 
τὰ νοήματα ὑπέβαλεν ἑκάστῳ τῶν προφητῶν, αὐτοὶ δὲ λοιπὸν 
ἀπήγγελλον, ὡς ἕκαστος ἠδύνατο, τὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος. οὐ γὰρ ὡς ἀκινή- 
τοις αὐτοῖς ἐχρήσατο, καθάπερ ἣν τῶν δαιμόνων ἐπίπνοια" ἀλλ᾽ ἐβούλετο 
αὐτοὺς καὶ γινώσκειν τὰ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐμπνεύμενα, καὶ μετὰ τῆς οἰκείας 
γνώμης ἅπαντα λέγειν. μὴ γὰρ δὴ τοὺς τοῦ ἀθέου Μοντανοῦ λήρους 
παραδεξαΐμεθα, φήσαντος " τοὺς προφήτας κατεχομένους παρὰ Θεοῦ μὴ 
εἰδέναι ἃ λέγουσι."---Ποο. cit., p. 81. 

III. The third division of the subject may now be considered ; ν]Ζ.---- 
“Those testimonies of the Fathers which relate to the nature of the Bible 
as a written document, the joint product of the Holy Spirit and the men 
of God” (see, supra, p. 88). The uniform manner in which even the lan- 
guage employed by the sacred writers is ascribed to the suggestion of the 
Divine influence,—and this, too, by those who, like S. Jerome (see, supra, 
p. 328, note *), fully recognised the human element of Scripture,—affords 
unquestionable evidence as to the doctrine of the Church respecting the 
written document itself, 

Tertullian, having quoted 1 Thess. iv. 14, 16, proceeds :—“ Et ideo 
majestas Spiritus S. perspicax ejusmodi sensuum, et in ipsa ad Thessaloni- 
censes epistola swggerit: ‘De temporibus autem et temporum spatiis,” &. 
(c. v. 1)."—De Resurrectione Carnis, c. 24, p. 396. 

S. Irenzeus: “ Non enim solo sermone prophetabant Prophets, sed et 
Visione, * * * secundum id quod suggerebat Spiritus.”— Cont. Heres. 
lib) Vv. xx., p: 255. 

Origen:—To0 διδάξαν Mwvoéa Πνεῦμα τὴν πρεσβυτέραν αὐτοῦ 
ἱστορίαν * * * τοῦτ᾽ ἐδίδαξε καὶ τοὺς γράψαντας τὸ Evayyé- 
Atov.—Cont. Celsum, lib. i. § 44, p. 360. 

S. Cyprian :—‘ Per Hieremiam quoque hee eadem Spiritus S. swggerit, 
et docet, dicens,” &e.—De Orat. Dominic., p. 205. 

S. Jerome :-—“ Phariszei stupent ad doctrinam Domini; et mirantur in 
Petro et Johanne quomodo legem sciant, quum literas non didicerint. 
Quidquid enim aliis exercitatio et quotidiana in Lege meditatio tribuere 
solet, illis Spiritus S. suggerebat ; et erant, juxta quod seriptum est, θεοδί- 
dakro,”—Ad Paulin. Ep. liii., t. i. p. 271. Cf. also the passage quoted, 


1 The cases in which the Fathers do ascribe unconsciousness to the utterer of a 
Divine revelation confirm what has been said. This they considered to have been the 
state of such agents of God only as were Balaam and Caiaphas; whose unconsciousness is 
attributed to their personal unworthiness. §. Ambrose (A. D. 374), writes: ‘‘Sed non 
mireris infusum auguri a Domino quod loqueretur; quando infusum legis in Evangelio 
etiam principi Synagogze uni ex persequentibus Christum (Joan. xi. 50). * * * 
Indignatus Dominus per angelum dixit: ‘ Vade, sed quzecumque tibi inspiravero, hae 
dices,’—id est, non quee vis, sed quze cogéris loqui. Quasi organwm inane sonum Meis 
prebebis sermonibus: Ego sum, qui loquar, non tu qui ea que audieris, resultabis, et 
que non intelliges. * * * Balac indignatusest. * * * Respondit ille [Ba- 
laam], ‘ Calumniam patior de eo, quod nescio; ego enim nihil meum loquor, sed quasé 
cymbalum tinniens sonum reddo.’ ”—Ad. Chromat., Ep. 1.. t. ii. p. 994. And Theo- 
doret repeats this statement, assigning as a cause the unworthiness of the recipient :-= 
τὸ δὲ, ἐπορεύθη ἐπ’ εὐθεΐαν [Num. xxiii. 4], δηλοῖ ὅτι ἀληθῶς τὸ πρακτέον 
ἠβουλήθη μαθεῖν. τούτου χάριν τὸ ἀκάθαρτον στόμα Tod παναγίου ΠΠνεύμοτος ἐδέξατο 
τὴν ἐνέργειαν, καὶ φθέγ"εται ἃ μὴ βού «ται.---- Quest. xlii. in Num., t. i. p. 161. 


" 


438 APPENDIX 6. 


supra, p. 311, note *, adopting the varia lectio, “script,” given in the 
“edit. Bened.,” Paris, 1704, t. iii. 246. 

S. Augustine, referring to the events which followed the “Sermon on 
the Mount” (S. Matt. viii. 1, 2), observes :—‘ Hujus leprosi etiam Lucas 
meminit (v. 12, 13), non sane hoc ordine, sed ut solent pretermissa re- 
cordari, vel posterius facta preeoccupare, sicut divinitus suggerebantur, que 
antea cognita, postea recordando conscriberent.”—De Consens. Evang. lib. 
lise, xixy ἴοι ον ΒΡ. 5]. 

The following expressions of Origen, founded upon the saying of our 
Lord, that “one jot or one tittle (ἰῶτα ὃν ἢ μία κεραία) shall in no wise 
pass from the Law” (S. Matt. v. 18),—words which convey an idea to 
which he repeatedly recurs (cf. supra, p. 89, note *, and p. 271, note ὃ), 
and in which he is followed by many other Fathers,—connect the fore- 
going passages with those which still more directly point to the language 
of Seripture :— 

Εἰ δὲ τὰ λόγια Κυρίου λόγια ἁγνά. * * * καὶ μετὰ πάσης 
ἀκριβείας ἐξητασμένως τὸ “Aytov Πνεῦμα ὑποβέβληκεν αὐτὰ 
διὰ τῶν ὑπηρετῶν τοῦ λόγου, μήποτε καὶ ὑμᾶς διαφεύγῃ ἡ ἀναλογία, 
καθ᾽ ἣν ἐπὶ πᾶσαν ἔφθασε γραφὴν ἡ σοφία τοῦ Θεοῦ θεόπνευστον μέχρι 
τοῦ τυχόντος γράμματος" καὶ τάχα διὰ τοῦτο ὃ Σωτὴρ ἔφη" 
ἰῶτα ἕν ἢ μία κεραία οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου, ἕως ἂν πάντα 
γένηται. * * * οὕτως ἡμεῖς ὑπολαμβάνομεν περὶ πάντων τῶν 
ἐπιπνοίας τοῦ ᾿Αγίον Πνεύματος ἀναγεγραμμένων, ὡς τῆς * * * 
προνοίας * * λόγια σωτήρια ἐνεσπαρκυίας, ὥς ἐστιν εἰπεῖν 
ἑκάστῳ γράμματι κατὰ τὸ ἐνδεχόμενον ἴχνη τῆς σοφίας ----ἰϑεὶ. 
in Psalm., t. ii. p. 527. 

This principle he applies as follows :— Sacra volumina Spiritus pleni- 
tudinem spirant; nihilque est sive in Prophetia, sive in Lege, sive in Evan- 
gelio, sive in Apostolo, quod non a plenitudine majestatis descendat. 
* * * WNeque vero dixit [Jer. li. 6], salvare, sed resalvare. Ap- 
positio syllabe significat sacramentum.”—Hom. xxi, in Jerem., t. il. 

. 282. 
: And again: God said to Jeremiah (ch. 1. 8)---Πρὸ tov we πλάσαι σε 
ἐν κοιλίᾳ, and not, πρὸ τοῦ με ποιῆσαί oe :—for, adds Origen, ἀναγνοὺς 
τὴν Τένεσιν, καὶ τηρήσας τὰ εἰρημένα περὶ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ κόσμου, 
εὑρήσεις ὅτι ἣ γραφὴ πάνυ διαλεκτικωτάτη.---Πορὶ. i. mJerem., 
temp 151: 

On such principles was founded Origen’s aJlegorizing system of inter- 
pretation. This he states in the following words, which are important as 
proving both that his exalted idea of Inspiration was the established doc- 
trine of the Church, and also that he never abandoned the truth of the 
literal sense of Scripture :—‘ Est preeterea et illud In ECCLESIASTICA PRE&- 
DICATIONE quod mundus iste factus sit, * * * tum demum quod per 
Spiritum Dei Scripturz conscripte sint, et sensum habeant, NON EAM SOLUM 
qui in manifesto est, sed et alium quemdam latentem quamplurimos.”—De 
Princip. lib. i. § viii., t. i, p. 48. These words are particularly interesting 
as having been already quoted by S. Pamphilus, Mart. (A. D. 294.—* Apol. 
pro Origene,” ap. Galland., t. iv. p. 11), in reply to the charge brought 
against Origen of denying the literal truth of Scripture:—a charge to 
which he certainly left himself open in some unguarded statements. But 


” 


* APPENDIX G. 439 


see the additional remarks at the close of this Appendix. Although de 
parting from the chronological order hitherto followed, it may be well to 
quote here the views of so sober a commentator as ὃ. Chrysostom, in 
order to prove that such opinions, as to the profound meaning latent in 
every word of Scripture, were not confined to the school of the Allegorists, 

S. Chrysostom observes that some surprise may have been felt at the 
frequency of the Salutations in the Epistles of 5. Paul. He proposes, there- 
fore, to point out their utility; laying down the proposition— Or: τῶν θείων 
γραφῶν οὐδὲν περιττὸν, οὐδὲν πάρεργόν ἐστι, κἂν ἰῶτα EV, κἂν 
μία κεραία fh, ἀλλὰ καὶ ψιλὴ πρόσρησις πολὺ πέλαγος ἡμῖν ἀνοίγει 
ὀνομάτων. Καὶ τί λέγω, ψιλὴ πρόσρησις ; πολλάκις καὶ ἑνὸς στοιχείου 
προσθήκη ὁλόκληρον νοημάτων εἰσήγαγε δύναμιν. καὶ τοῦτο ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ 
᾿Αβαὰμ προσηγορίας ἐστὶν ideiv.—In illud, ‘Salut. Priscil. et Aquil’ 
Hom, i., t. iii. p. 172. 

And to the same effect :—“ Certain illiterate persons (τινές εἰσιν av- 
θρωποι βάναυσοι) taking up the Divine Books and perceiving statements 
as to chronology, or catalogues of names, pass such matters by with the 
remark,—’Ovduata μόνον ἐστὶ, καὶ οὐδὲν χρήσιμον ἔχει. Ti λέγεις; Ὃ 
Θεὸς φθέγγεται, καὶ σὺ τολμᾷς εἵπειν, οὐδὲν χρήσιμον τῶν εἰρημένων 
ἐστίν ;’—In illud, ‘ Vidi Dominum’ (Esai. vi. 1) Hom. ii., t. vi. p. 109. 
(Ct. also his remarks, to the same effect, on Rom, xvi. 5: “Salute Epzne- 
tus.”—Homil. xxxi, in Ep. ad Rom. t. ix. p. 745.) 

The principle of the foregoing statements is contained in the following 
explanation :—Ov γὰρ ῥήματα ἐστιν ἁπλῶς, ἀλλὰ τοῦ Τϊνεύματος τοῦ 
᾿Αγίον ῥήματα, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο πολύν ἐστι τὸν θησαυρὸν εὑρεῖν καὶ ἐν μιᾷ 
συλλαβῇ. Προσέχετε οὗν͵ παρακαλῶ, μετὰ ἀκριβείας ὃ * * μηδεὶς 
ἔξω ῥεμβέσθω τὸν λογισμόν * * * ἀλλ᾽ ἐννοῶν * * * ὅτι διὰ 
τῆς τῶν προφητῶν γλώττης τοῦ Θεοῦ πρὸς ἡμᾶς διαλεγομένου ἀκούομεν 
* * * "Opa τὴν ἀκρίβειαν τῆς διδασκαλίας. ᾿Αμφότερα τέθεικεν ὁ 
μακάριος οὗτος προφήτης, μᾶλλον δὲ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ “Αγιον διὰ τῆς τού- 
του γλώττης, παιδεῦον ἡμᾶς τῶν γεγενημένων τὴν ἀκολουθίαν .--- νη 
Gen. ii., Hom. xv., t. iv. p. 115. (Cf Hom. xlii., in Gen. xviil., ΠΟ 0:. 
Ρ. 425.) 

To return, however, to earlier writers. Alluding to our Lord’s words 
when He wept over Jerusalem, “ How often (ποσάκις) would I have gath- 
ered,” &c. (S. Matt. xxiii. 37), Clemens Al. asks—Ti οὖν ; ἠθέλησε μὲν, 
ovK ἠδυνήθη δέ" ποσάκις δὲ, ἢ ποῦ ; δίς, διά τε προφητῶν, καὶ διὰ τῆς 
παρουσίας. πολύτροπον μὲν οὗν τὴν σοφίαν ἡ Ποσάκις ἐκδείκνυ - 
Tat λέξις.---ἰϑέγορι. i. p. 882. Having observed that Pythagoras held 
him to be the wisest of men who gave names to things, he adds :—Aei 
τοίνυν Tac γραφὰς ἀκριβῶς διερευνομένους, ἐπειδὴ ἐν παραβολαῖς εἰρῆσ 
θαι ἀνωμολογηνται, ἀπὸ τῶν ὀνομάτων θηρωμένους τὰς δόξας ἃς τὸ 
Ἄγιον Πνεῦμα περὶ τῶν πραγμάτων ἔχον, εἰς τὰς λέξεις, ὡς 
εἰπεῖν, τὴν αὐτοῦ διάνοιαν ἐκτυπωσάμενον διδάσκει, 
ἵνα ἡμῖν ἀκριβῶς ἐξεταζόμενα διαπτύσσηται μὲν τὰ ὀνόματα πολυσήμως 
eipnuéva.—Prophet. Ecloge, § xxxii. p. 998. 

And again, in language subsequently employed by Origen :—Kai μυρίας 
dv ἔχοιμί σοι γραφὰς παραφέρειν, ὧν οὐδὲ κεραία παρελεύσεται pia, μὴ 
οὐχὶ ἐπιτελὴς γενομένη" τὸ γὰρ στόμα Κυρίου, τὸ “Αγιον Ἱ]νεῦμα, 
ἐλάλησεν ταῦτα.----Οολοτγί. ad Gentes, § ix p. 68. 


440 APPENDIX 6. 


S. Athanasius —Tive¢g μὲν yap τῶν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἀκεραίων͵ καίτοι 
πιστεύοντες εἷναι θεόπνευστα τὰ ῥήματα, ὅμως 
νημίζουσι διὰ τὸ εὔφωνον, καὶ τέρψεως ἕνεκα τῆς ἀκοῆς μελῳδεῖσθαι 
τοὺς ψαλμούς. οὐκ ἔστι δὲ οὕτως" οὐ γὰρ τὸ ἡδὺ καὶ πιθανὸν ἐζήτησεν 
ἡ γραφή" ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦτο ὠφελείας ἕνεκα τῆς ψυχῆς TeTOTWTAL.—LEpist. 
ad Marcellin, § χχνΊ]., t. 1. p. 999. 

S. Gregory, of Nyssa (A. D. 370):—"Ooa ἡ θεία γραφὴ λέγει, τοῦ 
Πνεύματός εἰσι τοῦ ‘Ayiov φωναΐ. καλῶς yap προεφήτευσε τὸ Πνεῦμα 

ὃ “Aylov’ τοῦτο πρὸς τοὺς κατὰ “Ῥώμην ᾿Ιουδαίους εἰπὼν τὰς Ἡσαΐου 
φωνὰς ἐπιφέρει. καὶ πρὸς ‘EGpaiovg τὸ Πνεῦμα προτάξας, ἐν οἷς φησίν, 
ὅτι dtd καθὼς λέγει [| Heb. iii. | τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ “Αγιον, ἐπάγει τὰ τῆς 
ψαλμῳδίας ῥήματα, τὰ ἐκ προσώπου τοῦ Θεοῦ διεξοδικῶς εἰρημένα. καὶ 
παρὰ αὐτοῦ δὲ τοῦ Κυρίου τὸ σον ἐμάθομεν, ὅτι Δαβὶδ οὐκ ἐν ἑαυτῷ 
μένων, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν οὐ κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην φύσιν φθεγγόμενος, τὰ 
οὐράνια διεξήει μυστήρια [scil. S. Matt. xxii. 43]—Cont. Hunom. Orat. 
vi, t. li. p. 604. 

S. Gregory, of Nazianz. (A. 1). 370) :—Let us not suppose that Scripture 
has been written without design (εἰκῆ); or that it presents an idle crowd 
of words and facts to amuse the hearers,” - Ἡμεῖς δὲ οἱ καὶ μέχρι τῆς 
τυχούσης “κεραίας καὶ γραμμῆς τοῦ πνεύματος τὴν ἀκρίβειαν ἕλκοντες, 
οὐ γὰρ ὅσιον, οὐδὲ τὰς “ἐλαχίστας πράξεις εἰκῆ σπουδασθῆναι τοῖς 
ἀναγράψασι, καὶ μέχρι τοῦ παρόντος μνήμῃ διασωθῆναι" ἀλλ᾽ iv’ ἡμεῖς 
ἔχωμεν ὑπομνήματα καὶ παιδεύματα τῆς τῶν ὁμοίων διασκέψεως ---Οτγαί. 
Secunda, t. i. p. 60. 

S. Jerome :—‘“ Ego enim non solum fateor ; sed libera voce profiteor, me 
in interpretatione Grecorum, absgue Scripturis’ Sanctis UBI EY VERBORUM 
ORDO MYSTERIUM EST, non verbum e verbo, sed sensum exprimere de sensu.” 
—Ad Pammachium, Epist. lvii, t. i, p. 306. Again :— Patet Exodus 
cum decem plagis, cum Decalogo, cum mysticis divinisque preeceptis. In 
promtu est Leviticus liber, in quo singula sacrificia, immo singule pone 
syllabe, et vestes Aaron, et totus ordo Leviticus, spzrant celestia sacra- 
menta.”—Ad Paulinum, Ep. iii. t. 1. p. 274. (See also S. Jerome’s words 
quoted, supra, p. 78, note *). 

S. Augustine, speaking of “the waters which were above the firma- 
ment”—Gen. i. 7, observes: “Quoque modo autem, et qualeslibet aque ibi 
sint, esse eas ibi minime dubitemus: major est quippe Scripture hujus 
auctoritas, quam omnis humani ingentt capacitas.”—De Genesiad. lit.lib. 
ii. 6. 5, Ὁ. iii, p. 135. 

To this division of the subject belong the following passages, where the 
principle is stated on which the harmony of the different parts of Scrip- 
ture depends. Theophilus of Antioch :— 

Πόσῳ οὗν μᾶλλον ἡμεῖς τὰ ἀληθῆ εἰσόμεθα, οἱ μανθάνοντες ἀπὸ τῶν 
ἁγίων προφητῶν, τῶν χωρησάντων τὸ “AyLlov Πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ. διὸ 
σύμφωνα καὶ φίλα ἀλλήλοις οἱ πάντες προφῆται εἷπον.---- 
Ad Autol. lib. iii. ὁ. xvii, p. 390. (Cf, also, Zb¢d. lib, ii. ὁ. xxxv., 

814. 
i 5. Ppiphanius -—Ovdyl ἐκάστῳ ἐμερίσεν ὁ Θεὸς, ἵνα οἱ τέσσαρες Evay- 
γελισταὶ ὀφείλοντες κηρύξαι. εὕρωσιν ἕκαστος τὶ ἐργάσωνται; καὶ τὰ 
μὲν συμφώνως καὶ ἴσως κηρύξωσιν ἵνα δειχθῶσιν, ὅτε ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς 
πηγῆς ὥρμηνται: τὰ δὲ ἑκάστῳ παραληφθέντα, ἄλλος διηγήσεται, ὃς 


APPENDIX 6. 441 


ἔλαβι παρὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος μέρος τῆς advadoyiac—Adv. Heer. lib. is. 
Heres. li., t. i. p. 427. 

Origen states the result :—Tpitoc εἰρηνοποιὸς, ὃ ᾿τὴν ἄλλοις φαινο 
μένην μάχην τῶν γραφῶν ἀποδεικνὺς εἷναι οὐ μάχην, καὶ “παριστὰς 
τὴν συμφωνίαν καὶ τὴν εἰρήνην τούτων, ἤτοι παλαιῶν πρὸς καινὰς, 
ἢ νομικῶν πρὸς προφητικὰς, ἢ εὐαγγελικῶν πρὸς ἀποστολικὰς, ἢ ἀποστο- 
λικῶν πρὸς ἀποστολικάς .----(οηληι. in Matth., t. iii. p. 441. 

That such statements by no means imply that the Fathers held the 

‘mechanical’ theory of Inspiration, in its modern sense, is obvious from 
the passages already quoted in Lecture vii. p. 326, &e. The principles 
there laid down had been already defined by Origen, whose views as to 
the Divine authority of even the words of Seri ipture, were, as we know, so 
rigid :— 

Οἱ ᾿Απόστολοε * * * φασὶν ἰδιῶται εἶναι τῷ λόγῳ, GAA’ οὐ τῇ 
γνώσει" νομιστέον γὰρ αὐτὸ οὐχ ὑπὸ Παύλου μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν 
λοιπῶν ᾿Αποστόλων λέγεσθαι ἄν. In illustration of which fact, he quotes 
the saying of S. Paul: “We have this treasure in earthen vessels (ἐν 
ὀστρακίνοις σκεύεσιν), that the excellency of the power may be of God, 
and not of us.”—2 Cor. iv. 7; explaining, ὀστρακίνων δὲ σκευῶν τῆς 
εὐτελοῦς καὶ εὐκαταφρονήτου παρ᾽ ἽἍλλησι λέξεως τῶν γραφῶν LI Ess 
ὑπερβολῆς, δυνάμεως τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐμφαινομένης, ὅτι ἴσχυσε ES 
δύναμις τῶν λεγομένων οὐκ ἐμποδιζομένη ὑπὸ τῆς εὐτελοῦς φράσεως, 
φθάσαι ἕως περάτων yij¢:—and he concludes by the argument, which 
appears to have been an established principle in the Church (see, supra, 
p. 326, note *), that, had the sacred writers exhibited that rhetorical style 
and diction which the Greeks cultivated with such care, their success in 
converting the world might have been ascribed not to the truth of their 
doctrine, but to the eloquence with which it had been enforced—Comm. 
in Joann (t. iv.), t. iv. p. 99. 

The absence of exact definitions on the subject is at once accounted for 
by the fact, that no party, or even individual writer, denied or questioned 
the perfect ‘Inspiration of Scripture (see, supra, p. 79, where also the only 
exceptions to this statement are noticed). The single occasion, too, on 
which any controversy seems to have arisen respecting the result of the 
Divine influence fully confirms so wide an assertion ; and also shows that 
the Church was in possession of principles which, had the occasion pre- 
sented itself, would at once have led to the most accurate dogmatical 
definitions. It may be well briefly to state the leading facts as to this con- 
troversy; both because the opinions that were then elicited form the 
natural point of transition between the views of the early Church, and 
those which have been considered in Appendix C; and also because they 
exhibit the exact agreement existing, as | venture to think, between the 
doctrine of Inspiration maintained in the present work, and that which has 
been inculeated by the Church Catholic from the earliest times. 

The controversy to which I refer took place between S. Agobard, Arch- 
bishop of Lyons (A. D. 841), and the Abbot Fredegisus, Chancellor of the 
Emperor Ludovicus Pius, and pupil of Alcuin. Fredegisus had accused 
8. Agobard of asserting “ ‘that the Apostles and Evangelists, the translators 
of Scripture and its ‘Catholic expositors,” had committed grammatical 


449 APPENDIX G. 


errors.’ In reply to this charge 5, Agobard commenves by stating his 
opinion as to Scripture : τος 

“Ista tamen inconcussa et firma auctoritas illorum auctorum est, per 
quos Spiritus S. Novi et Veteris Testamenti volumina confecit ; de quibus 
nulli unquam homini licuit aut licet cogitare vel unam literam aliter eos 
dicere debuisse quam dixerunt, quoniam eorum auctoritas firmior est clo 
ac terra, secundum quod Dominus ait: ‘ Facilius est coelum et terram trans- 
ire, quam de Lege unum apicem cadere.’ ”"—Adv. Fredegisum, cap. ix. ed. 
Baluz., t. 1. p. 174. 

The case, he adds, is altogether different with respect to translators, 
whose errors 8. Jerome censures In his Prefaces; or expositors, of whom 
S. Augustine, in his book against Faustus the Manicheean (and this “ non 
solum de illis qui reprehensi sunt a Doctoribus, etiam de probatissimis”), 
writes as follows :—“ Quod genus literarum, id est expositionum, non cum 
credendi necessitate, sed cum judicandi libertate, legendum est. Soli nam- 
que Divine auctoritatis hbri legendi sunt non cum judicandi libertate, sed 
cum credendi necessitate.” Hence S. Agobard argues :—You, Fr edegisus, 
have acted far more erroneously, inasmuch as τ quoscumque interpretes 
atque expositores cozequatis Apostolis et Evangelistis ; cum Symmachum 
et Paulum, et Didymum et Johannem, un& defensione indifferentique laude 
dignos ducitis” (p. 176). The next char ge of Fredegisus which he notices, 
is the following——“ Turpe est enim Spiritum ὃ, gui omnium gentium lin- 
guas mentibus Apostolorum infudit, rusticitatem potius per eos quam no- 
bilitatem uniuscujusque linguze locutum esse.” §. Agoburd denies, with 
much solemnity, the charge of having ascribed “rusticitas” to the Holy 
Spirit ; but he retorts again upon Fredegisus :—“ Extra hoc autem quod 
tale sacrilegium nobis impingere videmini, apparet etiam in his verbis ves- 
tris quod ita sentiatis de Prophetis et Apostolis, ut non solum sensum pree- 
dicationis, et modos, vel argumenta dictionum, Spiritus §. eis inspiraverit, 
sed etiam ipsa corporalia verba extrinsecus in ora tllorum Ipse formaverit. 
Quod si ita sentitis quanta absurditas sequetur quis dinumerare poterit ?”— 
Ibid, ¢. xii. p. 177. In proof of this statement he qu uotes Moses’ assertion, 
that he was “slow of speech,” and the fact that God admitted its truth 

Ex. iv.; vi.); adding :—“ Restat ergo ut sicut ministerio angelico vox arti- 
culata formata est in are asinz, ita dicatis formari in ore Prophetarum. 
Et tune talis etiam absurditas sequetur, ut si tali modo verba et voces ver- 
borum acceperunt, sensum ignorarent. Sed absit talia deliramenta cogi- 
tari.” In illustration, he refers to 8. Jerome’s remarks on 2 Cor. xi. 6 
(quoted, supra, p. 328, note *) ; and also to his Prefaces :—“ Qui etiam in 
preefationibus Esaiz, Hieremiz, et Ezekielis quid de differentia locutionis 
Prophetarum eorum dixerit, diligenter perpendite ; et invenietis nobilita- 
tem divini eloquii, non secundum vestram assertionem, more Philosophorum, 
in tumore et pompa esse verborum, sed in virtute sententiarum, secundum 


‘ In the conduct of this controversy Neander observes tuat S. Agobard “nahe 
daran anstreifte, in dem Inspirations-begriffe das G6ttliche urd das Kigenthtimlich- 
Menschiliche schiirfer zu sondern, wenn gleich er nicht dazu gelangte, dies vollstandig 
zu entwickeln.”—Allg. Gesch. der christl. Kirche, B. iv. s. 388. It will be seen with 
what injustice Dupin adduces 5, Agobard as an authority to prove that translations 
of Scripture have as full a claim to be considered inspired as the original.—See hia 
“ Hist. of the Canon.” Book i. ch. ii. ἃ 6. 


APPENDIX G. 443 


quod ipse Apostolus ait: “Non enim in sermone est regnum [ei, sed in 
virtute” "—Jbid, p. 178. 

The opinion that Theodore of Mopsuestia affords the example of an 
early opposition to the Church’s doctrine of Inspiration (see supra, p. 78, 
&c.), is next to be considered. 

Theodore was born about the year 350, and died about 428.* S. Chry- 
sostom was the friend of his youth; and he was one of the most distin- 
guished ornaments of the celebrated school of Antioch. It is unnecessary 
to add anything, in proof of Theodore’s literary merit, to what has been 
already quoted, p. 79, note *, The unquestionable tendency, however, of 
his writings to support those views which were subsequently developed in 
the heresy of Nestorius, led to Theodore’s condemnation by the Fifth Gen- 
eral Council (A. D. 553). He was likewise assailed with great bitterness 
some years later by Leontius, an advocate of Byzantium (cre. A. 1). 590). 
Previously to the coudemnation of his opinions by the Council, there ap- 
pears to have been a warm discussion on the subject: and Theodore was 
ardently defended by Facundus, Bishop of Hermiane, in Africa (A. D. 540), 
in a work entitled “Pro Detensione Trium Capitulorum Concilii Chalce- 
donensis” (ed. Sirmondi, Paris, 1629), and addressed to the Emperor Jus 
tinian. In addition to what may be gathered from his own writings, the 
opinions of Theodore with respect to Inspiration may be inferred not only 
from the recorded opinions of his defender on the subject,—who assuredly 
would not have upheld the cause of one who, in any sense, questioned the 
authority of Scripture; but also from the nature of the charges which 
were urged against him.” 

The views of Facundus himself may be collected from the following 
words —‘“ Nam si obstinatus ille dicendus est, qui non cedit Ecclesiz con- 
stitutis, earundem Scripturarum auctoritate firmatis, quanto deterioris ob- 
stinationis dicendus est, qui ipsis Divinis Scripturis dedignans acquiescere, 
inviolabili earum plenitudint aut abrogat veritatem, aut aliquid deesse 
putat quod propria debeat adinventione supplere ?’—Loe. evt. lib. xi. 

. 514, 
ὶ The error of Theodore, with respect to Scripture, was twofold. (1) The 
extreme into which he was led by his opposition to the principles of the 
Allegorists, against whom he wrote a special treatise; and (2) his rejection 
from the Canon of portions of the Old and New Testaments. 

(1) Theodore seems to have borrowed his system of interpretation from 
his teacher, Diodorus of Tarsus,—a name unhappily too notorious in the 
controversies of that age,—whose principle it was to pay regard to the 
mere letter of Scripture (ψιλῷ TO γράμματι τῶν θείων προσέχων γραφῶν. 
—Socrates, Hist. Hecl. lib. vi. cap. 8, p. 311). Hence resulted the method 
of typical, as opposed to allegorical exposition; a method which is thus 
described by Theodore himself :— 

«ΑἹ things in both the Old and the New Testament have been ordained 
by one and the same God, intent upon one end (πρὸς ἕνα σκοπὸν ὁρῶν). 
Having of old determined with Himself to make known the constitution 


1 See O. F. Fritzsche, “‘De Theodori Mopsuest. Vita et Scriptis,” Hala, 1836. 
2 A valuable result will follow from this inquiry, namely, that we shall learn 
the opinion of an Ecumenical Council on the important question which we are com 


sidering. 


444 APPENDIX 6. 


of the Future (τὴν μέλλουσαν ἐκφῇναι κατάστασιν), the commencement 
of which He has exhibited in the economy introduced by the Lord Christ; 
and considering it necessary that we should first exist in this present state 
οἵ things, and be afterwards transferred to that other, by means of the Re- 
surrection from the dead, * * * inorder that this might become mani- 
fest, and that it might not be thought that He had afterwards determined 
anything new concerning us,—by many and different means He already 
suggested (ἐναπέθετο) to men the Advent of the Lord Christ.” The pro- 
mises to Abraham and to David have been fulfilled in the dispensation in- 
troduced by Christ; in Whom all nations have been truly blessed, and 
Whose kingdom shall not be moved. For this purpose, God preserved 
with care His people, who waited for the coming of the Lord Christ. For 
this cause He disposed most things under the Old Covenant in such a 
manner that they might not only afford the greatest profit to those who 
then lived, but might also indicate what was to be manifested afterwards : 
and thus the things of old were a type of what was to come :---εὑρίσκετό 
TE KATA τοῦτον TOY τρόπον τύπος τίς τὰ παλαιὰ τῶν ὕστερον, ἔχοντα 
μέν τινα μίμησιν πρὸς tavtTa.—Prowm. in Jonam (ap. A. Mai., “Script. 
Vet. Nova Coll.,” t. vi. p. 114). E. g. God released Israel from Egypt and 
from all that bitter bondage ; He saved them by the death of the first-born ; 
and by anointing the door-posts with blood distinguished between His 
people and the Egyptians: by types (ἐν τύποις), denoting beforehand that 
che Lord Christ would so deliver us, not from the bondage of Egypt, but 
‘-om that of death and of sin. 

Theodore divided the Psalms into four classes,’ Historical, Prophetical, 
Moral, and Messianic. According to his disciple, Cosmas Indicopleustes 
(δ. D. 535), the school of Theodore regarded four Psalms only as Mes- 
slani¢,’ i, e. as applicable throughout to Christ alone: 6 Δαυὶδ ἠξιώθη 
ἐκ Πνεύματος προειπεῖν περὶ τοῦ Δεσπότον Χριστοῦ ψαλμοὺς δ΄., 
τὸν β΄. καὶ τὸν ή. καὶ τὸν μδ΄. καὶ τὸν ῥθ΄., ὅλους τοὺς δ΄. δι᾽ ὅλου εἰς 
Αὐτὸν εἰρηκώς.---- Christian. Opinio de Mundo, lib. v. {“ Collect. Nov. Patr.” 
ed. Montfauc,, t. 11, p. 224.) Without dwelling upon the fact that Facundus 
(doc. cit., lib. iii. p. 180) quotes a statement of Theodore to the effeet that 
his Commentary upon the Psalms was no more than a crude production 
of his pen in early youth; or adducing the case of many other writers who 
have equally limited the number of the Messianic Psalms (e. g. Hengsten- 
berg, see supra, p. 151, note), but who have never been regarded, on that 
account, as opponents of Inspiration;—it will be sufficient, in proof of 
Theodore’s profound sense of the Divine nature of Scripture, to quote two 
passages from his Commentary on the Minor Prophets, selected almost at 
random. Explaiuing Hos. i. 1 (“The word of the Lord that came unto 
Hosen”), he writes:—Adyov δὲ Κυρίου τὴν ἐνέργειαν ἁπανταχοῦ λέγει 
τὴν θείων τὴν ἐφότῳ δήποτε γίγνομένην * * * θείαν δὲ ἐνέργειαν 


ΕΥ̓ 


κἀνταῦθα λέγει, καθ᾽ ἣν ἀποκάλυψις τῶν ἐσομένων ἐγίνετο τῷ προφήτῃ" 


* See Fritzsche, loc. οἷί, p. 32. 

* Leontius has charged Theodore with allowing only three Psalms to be Messianic, 
referring the others, in a Judaizing manner, to Zorobabel and Hezekiah:—rov¢ πάντας 
ψαλμοὺς ἰουδαϊκῶς τοῖς περὶ τὸν LopoBaBer καὶ ᾿Εζεκίαν ἀνέθηκε τρεῖς μόνους τῷ Κυρίῳ 
mpoopiwac.-~Adv. Nestorian., § xv. (ap. A. Μαὶ., “Spicileg. Rom.” t. =, par. iL 
p. 73). 


APPENDIX G. 445 


ἀφ᾽ ἧς περ αὐτῷ Kal τὸ λέγειν τὰ καὶ μηνύειν τὰ ἐσόμενα δύναμις 
brijpyev.— Comm, in Oseam (loc. cit., p. 2). 

Again:—Tij¢ αὐτῆς τοῦ ‘Ayiov νεύματος χάριτος of τε πάλαι 
μετεῖχον καὶ οἱ τῷ τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης ὑπηρετούμενοι μυστηρίῳ .-- 
Comm. in Nahum, i. 1 (loc. cit., p. 168). (The discussion which tollows 
here, on the ecstatic condition of the prophets, and founded on 1 Cor. xii., 
is full of interest.) 

The Books of Scripture which Theodore rejected were, in the Old Tes- 
tament, the writings of Solomon, the Chronicles, Job, Ezra; and in the 
New, as Leontius (/. ὁ. p. 73) states, the Catholic Epistles. The principle 
on which he did so,—at least in some of these cases, as appears from his 
own words quoted at the Council of Constantinople,—was not founded 
upon a denial of Inspiration, but (as I have already observed) upon his 
attempt to lay down a criterion which all inspired books must satisfy :— 
“His que pro doctrina hominum scripta sunt, et Salomonis libri con- 
numerandi sunt, id est, Proverbia et Ecclesiaste ; quie ipse ex sua persona 
ad aliorum utilitatem composuit, cwm Prophetie quidem gratiam non ac- 
cepisset, prudentie vero gratiam, que evidenter altera est preter illam, se- 
cundum beati Pauli vocem.”—Art, Ixiii, (ap. Mansi, t. ix. p. 223). 

The following extracts exhibit not only the opinion of that Council on 
the subject of Inspiration, but also the nature of the error respecting 
Scripture for which Theodore was condemned. Α series of “ Articles” se- 
lected from his writings was recited before the Council,—throughout which, 
as, indeed, throughout all his writings, the title “ Divine Scripture” repeat 
edly occurs,—each Article being preceded by a brief statement of its con- 
tents. 

Ar.. [ΧΠ]. is headed “ Ejusdem Theodori reprobantis et librum Job, et 
contra Conscriptorem ejus, td est Sanctum Spiritum, dicentis,” &c. And 
again: Art. Ixvi. is headed—* Per omnia reprobans Scripturam Job, et 
Conscriptori maledicens (7dem autem est dicere Sancto Spiritui),” ὅσο. 

The Council next proceeded (“Collatio 5ta,” ibid., p. 230, ἀπο.) to read 
over “ea que contra Theodorum Mopsuestenum et ejus blasphemias sancti 
patres scripserunt ;” in which, however, no mention whatever is made of 
Theodore’s having questioned the authority or Inspiratiou of Scripture, the 
whole controversy turning upon his interpretation of it. That interpreta- 
tion was obviously founded upon his exalted estimate of the letter of Scrip- 
ture; an estimate which, by a different process, led Origen into an opposite 
extreme. And here the subject of these two opposite schools of exposi- 
tors, to which reference has been made in Lecture vii. (p. 310), must be 
briefly considered. 

The light in which Origen regarded the language of Scripture, and 
whieh may be inferred from his words already quoted, is laid down in the 
following striking passage :—“ Videtur mihi unusquisque sermo Diving 
Scripture similis esse alicui seminum, cujus nature hee est, ut cum jactum 
fuerit in terram, regeneratum in spicam, * * * multiplicite: diffun- 
datur; et tanto cumulatius, quanto vel peritus agricola plus seminibus 
laboris impenderit, vel beneficium terre foecundioris indulserit.”—Jn Exod. 
Hom. i. § 1 t. i. p. 129. 

Origen had also a clear apprehension of the still more important prin- 
ciple, that the Bible must be regarded as one organic whole, not as a for 


446 APPENDIX G. 


tuitous assemblage of independent writings: but he does not seem to have 
been capable of grasping the great truth which he thus perceived. He 
observed, that as man consists of body, soul, and spirit, so Scripture con- 
sists of the letter, the sense contained under the letter, and a certain shadow 
of heavenly things (Heb. viii. 5). Thus he writes :—“ Triplicem in Scrip- 
turis Divinis intelhgentize inveniri seepe diximus modum,—historicum, 
moralem, et mysticum. Unde et corpus inesse ei, et animam, ac spiritum 
intelleximus.”—Jn Levit. Hom. v. § 5, t. li. p. 209. And again :—"Qo7ep 
γὰρ ὁ ἄνθρωπος συνέστηκεν EK σώματος Kal ψυχῆς Kal πνεύματος" τὸν 
αὐτὸν τρόπον καὶ ἡ οἰκονομηθεῖσα ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰς ἀνθρώπων σωτηρίαν 
δοθῆναι yeaph.—De Princip. lib. iv., ὕ. 1. p. 168." Now it is plain, if 
this analogy is to be carried out, that, in order to form a just conception of 
what Scripture means, due value must be assigned to each of its three ele 
ments; and the relation to each other which they respectively hold must 
be maintained, The spz7it of man confers its vital power upon the material 
substance into which it has been infused: while the soul, the product, as it 
were, of this union of the spiritual and the corporeal,’ is that in which 
consists the real existence of the living man. To consider the material 
substance alone, or the spirit alone, is at once to abandon the region of 
actual being. We should then contemplate an inanimate mass; or specu- 
late respecting the nature of an immaterial element which transcends the 
limit of all human experience. While if we grasp the full idea of the 
living man, his material substance becomes the outward, but necessary, 
garb of the spiritual essence; the union of both being expressed by the 
Soul, which derives its vital principle from what is spiritual, and the condi- 
tion of its existence from the bodily organization—an organization which 
(as we learn from the doctrine of the Resurrection of the body), is as 
essential to its future as to its present being. The fixed relation of these 
three components was what Origen failed to maintain when he proceeded 
to apply the analogy which he so acutely pointed out. Neglecting, and 
at times appearing even to deny, the historical sense of Scripture, he dwelt 
exclusively upon its spiritual element: nay, so far did his one-sided system 


1 Tt is interesting to observe how Origen follows here in the footsteps of Philo. 
Philo having said that “he, to whom God has granted to be, as well as to seem, hon- 
orable and virtuous, is truly happy,” continues :—Eioi yap τινες of τοὺς ῥητοὺς 
νόμους συμβολα νοητῶν πραγμάτων ὑπολαμβάνοντες, τὰ μὲν ἄγαν ἠκρίβωσαν, TOV δὲ 
ῥαθύμως ὠλιγώρησαν, οὗς μεμψαΐμην ἂν ἔγωγε τῆς εὐχερείας. We are not, he goes on 
to say, to omit the actual observance of a festival because it symbolizes (σύμβολόν 
ἐστι) joy of soul, and thanksgiving to God. Nor because Circumcision denotes 
(ἐμφαΐνει) the excision (ἐκτομην) of pleasures and affections, must we therefore abro- 
gate the law which commands the rite itself. On such a principle we should do 
away with the Temple-worship, and innumerable other ceremonies, if we shall attend 
merely to what the latent sense denotes (εἰ μόνοις προσέξομεν τοῖς dv’ ὑπονοιῶν δηλου- 
μένοις). He then proceeds to anticipate Origen in his analogy, using almost the same 
words:—AAAd χρὴ ταῦτα μὲν σώματι ἐοικέναι νομίζειν, ψυχῇ δὲ ἐκεῖνα " ὥσπερ 
οὖν σώματος ἐπειδὴ ψυχῆς ἐστιν οἶκος προνοητέον, οὕτω καὶ τῶν ῥητῶν νόμων 
ἐπιμελητέον .----.1)6 Migr. Abr., t. i. p. 450. 

3. “ΠῊρΡ Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his 
nostrils the breath [or spirit, m2v2,—cf Lecture y. p. 225, note 1] of life, and man 
became a living soul (w52).”—Gen. ii. 7. Cf “I pray God your whole spirit, and sou, 
and body (τὸ πνεῦμα, Kai ἡ ψυχὴ, καὶ τὸ σῶμα) be preserved blameless,” &¢c.—1 Thess, 
v. 23. See Mr. Westcott’s remarks on this subject, ‘‘ Elem. of Gosp. Harmony,” App 
B, p. 207. 


APPENDIX G. 447 


of inte.pretation lead him, that he ventured to assert—@kovdunoé τινα 
οἱονεὶ σκάνδαλα καὶ προσκόμματα καὶ ἀδύνατα. * * * 6 τοῦ Θεοῦ 
Λόγος. iva. * * * μὴ κινούμενοι ἀπὸ τοῦ γράμματος, μηδὲν θειό- 
τερον μάθωμεν .-----.1)6 Princip. lib. iv., t. 1. p. 173. 

From the natural reaction against such exaggerated allegorizing arose 
the school of Theodore; which, from an undue depreciation of the spiritual 
element, and an exclusive assertion of the mere literal sense, fell into the 
opposite extreme. In consequence of this error, Theodore regarded the 
primary application (see Lecture iv. p. 153, note *) of the Old Testament 
prophecies us their complete and sole meaning; and hence he was charged 
with “Judaizing”* by the different writers, who opposed his views. E. g. 
the prediction as to our Lord’s triumphant entry into Jerusalem, which the 
Evangelists (S. Matt. xxi. 4; S. John, xii. 14) quote from Zechariah (ix. 9), 
Theodore considered as designed to point out Zorobabel alone; alleging 
that it is referred in the Gospels to Christ, solely because He, too, was great, 
and just, and a deliverer, The principle according to which part of the 
prediction applies to Zorobabel, and part to our Lord, in Theodore’s judg- 
ment, ψυχρολογίας ἐστι περιττῆς Kal ἀπειρίας τῶν θείων ypapav.— 
Comm. in Zach. (loc. cit. p. 255). 

It is not difficult to perceive how the analogy suggested by Origen, if 
consistently applied, leads to the true principle of interpretation. The 
“Soul” of the sacred writings can never be appreciated by fixing our whole 


} As might naturally be supposed, the passages in which such statements occur 
have been laid hold of by Strauss (‘‘ Introduct.” § 4); and with his usual unfairness. 
Origen’s principle was that every isolated phrase and expression of Scripture is replete 
with profit and instruction: even the ordinances of the Jewish Law, apart from the 
great Scheme of which they formed an element, abound with instruction for Christians. 
Hence, speaking of the Law as to “the sin-offering,” Lev. vi. 24, &c., he argues that 
the passage must be expounded spiritually, since to announce to a Christian assembly 
the benefit of animal sacrifices as an atonement for sin must lead to offence and to 
error :—‘ Hee omnia nisi alio sensu accipiamus, quam literze textus ostendit, sicut 
sepe jam diximus, cwm in Ecclesia recitantur, obstaculum magis et subversionen 
Christiane religioni, quam hortationem zdificationemque prestabunt.”—In Levit 
Hom. y., t. ii. p. 205. “‘ What edification (he asks, in a passage quoted by Strauss) 
shall we derive from the history of Abraham and Abimelech (Que nobis zedificatic 
erit)?” “Hee Judzi pwtent, et si qui cum eis literze amici non Spiritus.”—Jn Genes. 
Hom. vi. § 3, t. ii p. 78.—“ Origen by no means requires that we should not believe 
this narrative (πιστεύειν, credere); but only that we should not think (νομίζειν, putare) 
that it so conveyed edification, or that it was written for the sake of its merely verbal 
sense. This latter view is Jewish or literal.”—Hoffman Das Leben Jesu, 8.42. As 
Origen himself observes :—‘‘ Heec interim propter eos qui amici sunt litere, * * * 
Sed nos qui omnia que scripta sunt non pro narrationibus antiquitatum, sed pro dis- 
ciplina et utilitate nostra didicimus scripta,” &e.—Jn Exod. Hom, ii, Ὁ. ii. p. 133. 

2 As the extreme maintained by Theodore arose from the reaction against the ex- 
cessive allegorizing of Origen, so Origen’s excesses may, not unfairly, be attributed to 
his opposition to the Chiliasts, or Millenarians (see Neander, “ Kirchen-Gesch,” B. i. 
Β. 1125), whom he describes as “solius litere discipulos. * * * Christo quidem 
credentes, Judaico autem quodam sensu Scripturas Divinas intelligentes.”—De Princip. 
lib. ii, t. i. p. 104, (See, also, his “Comm. in Matt.,” t. iii. p. 827; “ Prolog. in Cantic.,” 
τ. iii. p. 28; “Sel. ad Psal.,” t. ii. p. 570). Eusebius has preserved the account given 
by 8. Divaysius of Alex. of his controversy, at a later period in the third century 
(A. Ὁ. 255), with the Millenarian bishop, Nepos, who was also obnoxious to this 
charge of “ Judaizing :"—'lovduikérepov τὰς ἐπηγγελμένας τοῖς ἁγίοις ἐν ταῖς θεΐαις 
γραφαῖς ἐπαγγελίας ἀποδοθήσεσθαι διδάσκων .--- Πϊδί. Eccl. lib. Vu. 6. Xxiv., p. 349). ΟΥ̓ 
Olshausen, ‘“ Ein Wort ib. ticf. Schriftsinn,” s. 13 δὲ 


448 APPENDIX H. 


attention, with Origen, upon their purely spiritual application; or, with 
Theodore, upon their merely literal sense. The true signification of Scrip- 
ture results from the due combination of both the spiritual idea, and the 
historical fact: and this, as I have shown in the Seventh of the preceding 
Discourses, is the method which the inspired writers themselves prescribe. 


APPENDIX H. 
THE ADDRESS OF S, STEPHEN.’ 
(Lecrure II—Pace 103.) 


Ir has been often, and with too little consideration, assumed that 8. 
Luke, in the Book of the Acts, has selected for his theme, through pre- 
ference merely, the labors of Apostles; and especially of S. Peter and S. 
Paul. And yet with what particularity does he record the preaching of 
the other ministers of the Gospel:—e. g. of S. Philip (ch. vii. 5, &c.), and 
S. Stephen (ch, vi., vil.) ; the history and martyrdom of the latter being 
described with such minuteness, while the death of the Apostle James is 
barely touched upon (ch. xii, 2). To which when we add the obvious 
design of S. Luke, in each of his writings, to supply instruction for Gentile 
readers,—a design to be inferred from his language and style, and choice 
of subjects, as well as from the care with which he relates not merely how 
the preachers of the Gospel, to a great extent abandoning Jerusalem, turned 
to the heathen world; but also how in each heathen city they turned from 
the Jews to the Gentiles,—we cannot doubt that he has composed the Acts 
of the Apostles, not under the influence of mere subjective preference; but, 
impelled by the objective necessity of the Divine Scheme, in order to rep- 
resent the passing of the message of Salvation from the people of Israel to 
the Pagan world (cf., supra, p. 354). We at once perceive the importance 
of the history of ὅδ, Stephen for such an object. His death was the event 
by which the Jews once more publicly showed themselves to be unworthy 
of the Gospel; and which, at the same time, not only led to its diffusion, 
through Samaria, among the Gentiles (ch. vill. 4, &e.; ix. 32, d&c.; 
xi, 19, &.), but also conduced immediately to the conversion of 
8. Paul. 

Attention has been already drawn (supra, p. 108, notes * and *), to the 
repeated and emphatic mention of S. Stephen’s Spiritual Gifts; and also to 
the three subjects of which he has treated in his review of Jewish history. 
These three subjects are not introduced in succession, but are intermingled 
with each other; the history supplying the different links of the argument. 
Special pains, too, are taken to point out that that peculiar characteristic 
of Revelation which consists in the repetition of Divine acts’ is reflected 
from the entire history of the people; and that its principle of repetition 


1 “Ueber Zweck, Inhalt, und Higenthiimlichkeit der Rede des Stephanus, Ap. 
Gesch. cap. vii.,” von Friedrich Luger, Liibeck, 1838. 

? E. g., Divine Revelation was not restricted to the Law and the Temple; but was 
perfected only in a repeated act of Revelat’' w—viz., in the accomplishment of the 
promise which accompanied the Law. 


APPENDIX H. 449 


is to be found visibly stamped upon events seemingly the least important. 
Thus, Abraham “came out of the land of the Chaldeans and dwelt 
(κατῴκησεν) in Charran: and from thence He [i. 6. God] removed 
(μετῴκισεν) him,” &e.—ver. 4. God gave him no inheritance in the land 
which he showed him; but promised its possession “to his seed after him 
(μετ᾽ avdtov).”—ver. 5. This seed should be in bondage 400 years; “and 
after that (μετὰ ταῦτα) shall they come forth.”—ver. 7. Jacob sent the 
patriarchs to Egypt first (πρῶτον) ; “and at the second time (ἐν τῷ dev- 
τερῷ) Joseph was made known to his brethren.”—ver. 12, 18. Joseph 
sent and called (μετεκαλέσατο) his father to him; “so Jacob went down 
κατέβη) unto Egypt, and died, he and our fathers, and were carried over 
ec oe into Sychem.”—ver. 14, 16. “Another king arose,” &¢:— 
ver. 18. “Zhe next day Moses showed himself unto them.”—ver. 26. 
Another leader, Joshua, conducted the peopie into the promised land—ver. 
45, &., &e. 

In speaking thus, 8. Stephen clearly adopted that view of the Old Tes- 
tament which regards no expression of Scripture, no event which it records, 
as superfluous or unimportant. In this treatment of his subject he is 
closely followed by S. Paul :—compare, for example, the Apostle’s use of 
Jewish history in Gal. iv., and 1 Cor. x., to which allusion has so often 
been made (see supra, p. 104, note *; p. 109, note *); consider, also, how 
he argues from the most casual expressions (see Lecture viii. p. 339), and 
even omissions of the Old Testament (e. g. Heb. vii. 8, 8). Is it unreason- 
able to suppose that this address of S. Stephen, of which S. Paul was a 
hearer,—and which appears to have roused him, at the moment, to frenzy 
in his zeal for the Law and the Temple (ef. vii. 58; ‘iii. 1, 3),—was not 
the least among the providential means by which his mind was prepared for 
his miraculous conversion? Compare, too, the whole tenor of his first ad- 
dress (ch. xiii. 16, &c.), which, equally with the discourse of S. Stephen, is 
based upon the Old Testament ; and, especially, the nature of the reproach 
brought against him by the Jews, “This is the man that teacheth all men 
everywhere, against the people, and the Law, and this place.”—xxi. 28; a 
charge which presents an exact parallel to that brought by the “false wit- 
nesses” against S. Stephen, “This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous 
words against this (1) holy place, and (2) the Law. For (3) we have heard 
him say that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall 
change the customs which Moses delivered us.”—vi. 13, 14. 

I. Here the three subjects of this discourse are imposed, by the neces- 
sity of the case, upon 8. Stephen :—(1.) The Temple of Solomon, as he 

roves from Isaiah, lxvi., was not a dwelling worthy of the God “ Who in- 
habiteth eternity.”—ver. 47, 49. Indeed, the previous history of Israel 
had shown that wherever God appeared, were it even “in the wilderness,” 
was “holy ground” (ver. 33, cf. ver. 30, 31): and this not merely in the 
promised land; for “the God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham 
when he was in Mesopotamia.”—ver. 2. (2.) From these latter words, 
“The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham,” the entire argu- 
ment starts. The Law was merely an additional element in the fulfilment 
of the promise then made (cf. Rom. v. 20; Gal. itl, 19) :—this fulfilment 
being the essential circumstance, not the Law. Nay, even Moses, by whom 
God accomplished the deliverance promised to Abraham (ver. 36), wrote 


29 


450 APPENDIX H. 


of the new promise added to the fulfilmeat of the former: “A prophet 
shall the Lord raise up unto you, like unto me.”—ver. 87. (8.) It was 
the chief ground of reproach against S. Stephen that he had taught that 
“Jesus of Wazareth” was to be the subverter of Temple and Law. In his 
reply S. Stephen does not expressly mention our Lord until the close of his 
address, where he announces the principle on which he had throughout 
encountered this charge: “Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost, as your 
fathers did, so do ye.”—ver. 561. Thus, “the patriarchs moved with envy 
sold Joseph.”—ver. 9. Moses “supposed his brethren would have under- 
stood how that God by his hand would deliver them: but they understood 
not.”—ver, 25. It was said to him, “ Who made thee a ruler and a judge 
over us ?”—ver. 27. “This Moses, whom they refused, did God send to be 
a ruler and a deliverer” (λυτρωτής) (ver. 35) ; “to whom our fathers would 
not obey, but thrust him from them,”—ver. 39. In fine, S. Stephen asks, 
“Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? They have 
murdered those who announced the Messiah’s coming ; you have betrayed 
and murdered Him when He came.”—ver. 52. Hence therefore his reply 
to the scorn exhibited against the despised Nazarene. The patriarchs sold 
Joseph, “but God was with him” (ver. 9); our fathers would not obey 
Moses, and yet Jehovah “had sent him as a ruler and deliverer.” Now, 
too, exclaims 8. Stephen, the people have rejected the Prophet of the Law 
written in the heart : they have not understood, in His High Priesthood, 
the fulfilment of the design of the Temple; and yet, behold! I see Him 
now “standing at the right hand of God.”— 
“En a dextris Dei stantem 
Jesum pro te dimicantem, 
Stephane considera. 
Tibi czelos reserari 


Tibi Christum revelari 
Clama voce libera.” ? 


IL. To turn, in the next place, to the historial objections* which have 


2 Of ver. 51,-πἩ]λκληροτράχηλοι καὶ ἀπερίτμητοι τῇ καρδίᾳ, with the exhortation of 
Moses, καὶ περιτεμεῖσθε τὴν σκληροκαρδίαν ὑμῶν, καὶ τὸν τράχηλον ὑμῶν ob σκληρυνε- 
ἴτε.---Οϑαῦ,. x. 16. 

2 Adam of S. Victor. Bengel well explains:—“éordra (stantem), quasi obvium 
Stephano, cf. ver. 59. Nam alias ubique, sedere, dicitur. Egregie Arator:— 


‘Lumina cordis habens czelos conspexit apertos, 

Ne lateat, quid Christus agat: pro Martyre surgit. 
Quem nune stare videt, confessio nostra sedentem 
Cum soleat celebrare magis. Caro juncta Tonanti 
In Stephano favet Ipsa Sibi.’ ” 


5 Tt is scarcely necessary, perhaps, to allude to the following objection. S. Stephen 
says:—‘“ The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, before He dwelt in 
Charran, and said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred,” &e. 
(vv. 2, 3); while in Gen. xii. 1, it is said (we are told) that God appeared for the 
first time to Abraham in Haran, after he had left Ur of the Chaldees. The English 
Version avoids the force of this by translating, ‘‘Now God had said unto Abra- 
liam.” The words of Genesis, however, at once afford the answer. God commands, 
4nt>yara1 ἼΣ ΝΣ 72°73; where,—although it cannot, perhaps, be proved that np 
can only be taken in the sense given by the LXX., ovyyévera,—the only meating 
that ἼΣΟΝ can possibly have is Ur of the Chaldees, the native country of Abraham: 
in which place, therefore, and τοί, as the objection assumes, in Haran, God mst have 
appeared. 


APPENDIX H. 451 


been urged against this address. “In the last apology of Stephen,” writes 
Mr. Alford, “ which he spoke being full of the Holy Ghost, and with Divine 
influence beaming from his countenance, we have at least two demonstrable 
historical mistakes.” —The Greek Test., vol. τ. Proleg., ch. i. § 6. These 
cases must be considered in order, On the words, “Then came he [Abra- 
ham] out of the land of the Chaldeans, and dwelt in Charran: and from 
thence when his father was dead he removed him into this land.” (Acts, 
vil. 4),—Mr. Alford notes as follows: “In Gen. xi. 26, we read that Terah 
lived 70 years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; in xi. 32, that Terah 
lived 205 years, and died in Haran ; and in xii. 4, that Abram was 75 years 
old when he left Haran. Since then 70+75=145, Terah must have lived 
60 years in Haran after Abram’s departure. It seems evident that the 
Jewish chronology, which Stephen follows, was at fault here, owing to the 
circumstance of Terah’s death being mentioned, Gen. xi. 32, before the com- 
mand to Abram to leave Haran ;—it not having been observed that the men- 
tion is anticipatory. And this is confirmed by Philo having fallen into the 
same mistake ----ΕΓρότερον μὲν ἐκ τῆς Χαλδαϊκῆς ἀναστὰς γῆς ᾿Αβραὰμ 
ῴκησεν εἰς Χαῤῥάν" τελευτήσαντος δὲ αὐτοῦ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖθε κάκ ταύ- 
της μετανίσταται .---Ἴ)6 Migr. Abr., t. i. p. 463. 

Now, without going any further, the remark is obvious, that for critics 
of the present day to convict S. Stephen of historical inaccuracy,—a man 
so versed in the sacred literature of his nation as to vanquish in argument 
the most learned of the Jewish Synagogue, who “ were not able to resist 
the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spake” (Acts, vi. 10); and whose 
possession of Spiritual Gifts S. Luke has brought so prominently forward,— 
must be regarded, to say the least of it, as a judgment somewhat precipitate. 
5uch a mode of evading a difficulty in the work of an ancient writer would 
assuredly be tolerated in no other province than that of religion. But let 
the objection itself be considered. 

The statement of Genesis is, that “ Terah lived seventy years, and begat 
Abraham, Nahor, and Haran.”—xi. 26. 

From the single fact that Abraham’s name occurs first in this passage 
tis inferred by commentators that he must have been the eldest son. On 
vhe other hand, Philo and 8. Stephen, as we have seen, agree in a statement 
which, if they understood the words of Moses, is not easily reconcilable 
with such an assumption, But is it very unreasonable to assume, in turn, 
that they did understand the language of the Old Testament; and that the 
opinion of such men may be better founded than the conclusions of modern 
critics? Now the analogy of the whole Patriarchal history intimates that 
it was not the first born who, in those days, succeeded to the inheritance. 
We read that “Noah was 500 years old, and begat Shem, Ham, and 
Japhet.” —Gen. v. 32, ὅσο. (cf. also vi. 10; χ. 1); while we are expressly 
told in ch. x. 21, tha; Japhet was the eldest son. Compare also the cases 
of Seth, Isaac, Jacob, and Judah. Josephus, moreover, fully confirms the 
inference that Abraham could not have been the first-born, We know 
from Gen. xvii. 17, that he was but ten years older than Sarah; and 
although she is called “the daughter of his father” (xx. 12), it is piain that, 
according to Hebrew usage, the phrase would be fully as applicable to the 
grand-daughter, as to the daughter of Terah." Josephus, moreover, ex- 


1 B g. Gen. xxix. 5, Laban is called the “son of Nahor;” but we know from ch. 


452 APPENDIX H. 


plicitly states that Sarah was his grand-daughter,—the daug ater of Haran, 
and sister of Lot and Mileah,—and that Abraham married his niece; a 
fact which, taken in connexion with their relative ages, demonstrates that 
Haran must have been many years older than Abraham. The words of 
Josephus are: ᾿Αράνης μὲν καταλιπὼν υἱὸν Λῶτον καὶ Σάῤῥαν καὶ 
Μελχὰν θυγατέρας * * γαμοῦσι δὲ τὰς ἀδελφι θα δ. 
Μελχὰν μὲν Ναχῶρης, Σάῤῥαν δὲ "ABpayoc— Ant. lib. i. vi. 5, p. 27. 

Ussher writes as follows: “1948 [A. M.]—Postquam Thara 70 vixisset 
annos, natus est eetate primus trium ipsius filiorum. Von Abram quidem 
(quem post 60 demum annos natum infra videbimus),sed Haran * ,* * 
2008.—Abram natus est: quippe 75 annorum existens, quum pater Thara 
moreretur, annum agens etatis 205. (Acts, vil. 4), 2018.—Sarai, gue et 
Iscah, Haranis fratris Abrami filia, nata est : utpote decennio, marito suo 
Abramo tate minor.”—Annales Vet. Test., Works, Elrington’s ed., vol. 
viii, p. 21. 

Accepting this fact, viz. that Abraham was not Terah’s eldest son, 
Luger (§ 41 ff.) considers another element necessary to explain S. Stephen’s 
allusion. He adopts Bengel’s remark : “ Abram, dum Thara vixit in Haran, 
domum quodammodo paternam habuit in Haran, in terra Canaan duntaxat 
peregrinum agens: mortuo autem patre, plane in terra Canaan domuin 
unice habere ccepit ;’—which, however, he explains to mean (rightly trans- 
lating μετοικίζειν, “to lead to another domacile,” not, “to emigrate,” a sense 
which would require the passive), that, according to the Patriarchal relations, 
and nomadic usage, the dwelling-place of the head of the Tribe alone could be 
regarded as the domicile of the members of the Tribe: and that although 
Abraham may have commenced his wanderings before his father’s death, 
yet that he did not receive another domicile (as S. Stephen states) until 
after the death of Terah: Terah’s name being introduced by S. Stephen 
merely to denote that he was the first member in the series of the disobe- 
dient (cf. Josh. xxiv. 2). 

The second “ historical mistake” which Mr. Alford ascribes to 8. Stephen 
is founded on ver. 16: “Jacob died, he and our fathers, and were carried 
over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham had bought for 
asum of money of the sons of Emmor, the father of Sychem.” Luger 
refers here to Calvin’s comment, “In nomine Abrahz erratum esse palam 
est. * * * quare hic locus corrigendus est ;” and adds: “Stier, on 
the other hand, justly remarks that to ascribe to Stephen an error of mem- 
ory in the statement of a fact so well known, may be named almost a piece 
of infatuation (fast théricht)” (s. 45). Mr. Alford thus states the difficulty : 
“The facts, as related in the Old Testament, were these :—Jacob, dying in 
Kgypt, was (Gen. ]. 13) taken into the land of Canaan, and buried in the 
cave of Macpelah, before Mamre: Joseph, dying also in Egypt, was taken 
in a coffin (Gen. 1. 26), at the Exodus (Exod. xiii. 19), and finally buried 
(Josh. xxiv. 82) at Shechem. Of the burial of the other patriarchs tke 


XXviii. 5, that he was the son of Bethuel, who was the son of Nahor (ch. xxiv. 15; 
xxii. 20-23). Cf also 1 Kings, xix. 16, with 2 Kings, ix. 2; 2 Sam. ix. 6, with 2 
Sam. xix. 24; Josh. vii. 1, 18, with ver. 24; 1 Chron. i. 17, with Gen. x. 23, &e., &e. 
Nor was Sarah’s having two names (viz. Sarai and Iscah, Gen. xi. 29) at all unusual, 
Thus the name of Samuel’s eldest son is Joel, in 3 Sam. viii. 2; and Vashni, in J 
Chron. vi. 28. 


APPENDIX H. 453 


sacred text says nothing, but by the specification in Exod, xiii. 19, leaves it 
to be inferred (?) that they were buried in Egypt. Josephus (Ant. 11. viii. 2) 
relates that they were taken and buried in Hebron: * * * the Rab- 
binical traditions mentioned by Wetst. and Lightf, report them to have 
been buried in Sychem. * * * These traditions probably Stephen 
followed ; and in haste or inadvertence classed Jacob with the rest. The 
burying-place which Abraham bought was not at Sychem, but (Gen. xxiii. 
3-20) at Hebron, and was bought ot Hphron the Hittite. It was Jacob who 
(Gen. xxxiii, 19) bought a field where he had pitched his tent, near Sychem, 
of the children of Hamor, Shechem’s father: and no mention is made of 
its being for a burying-place. The two incidents are certainly here confused ; 
and no ingenuity of the commentators has ever devised an escape trom the 
inference.” Luger answers this common objection by pointing to the pecu- 
liar manner in which, as we have already seen, 8. Stephen alludes to the 
national history. Abraham bought the sepulchre near Mamre, and there 
Jacob was buried (Gen. 1. 13); Jacob bought “a parcel of a field” at 
Sychem, and there Joseph was buried (Josh. xxiv. 32). That is, Abraham 
ate a grave for Jacob; and so did Jacob for Joseph; and thus we 

ave an additional instance of the law of repetition above alluded to. 
These two facts S. Stephen combines in a single phrase; and this same 
system of combination is constantly repeated throughout his address :— 
e. g. cf. ver. 7, with Gen. xv. 18, 14, and Ex. ili, 12 (see, supra, p. 308, 
note); cf., too, the statement of ver. 9. Compare, especially, the reference 
of ver, 43,’ “1 will carry you away beyond Babylon,” with the denunciation 
of Amos {v. 27) against the Ten Tribes: “Therefore will I cause you to 
go into captivity beyond Damascus ;”—in which words the deportation to 
Assyria {2 Kings, xvii. 6), is alone spoken of. Babylon, however, as the 
Prophets declared, was to be the exile of disobedient Judah ; and both 
denunciations are here combined by S. Stephen. So also in the passage 
before us, it is, with similar brevity, implied that Jacob was laid in the 
grave which Abraham had purchased in Hebron,’ Gen. xxiii, 19; 1. 13; 


1 Tt may be well to allude to the substitution of Remphan, or Rephan (‘Pe¢ay), in 
this verse, for the “‘Chiun, 77>” of Amos, v. 26. Of this, two explanations are 
given:—(1) Chiun=Saturn; Kircher (“(Edip. Agypt,” t. 1. p. 384) having proved 
the existence of a Coptic word, Ῥηφαν or ‘Pepuv (by which all Versions render the 
“Chiun” of Amos), which also stands for Saturn. (2) ‘Pydav=7; and the LXX., 
who give 'Ῥαιφών, had this reading instead of 77>,— standing for >. See Hengsten- 
berg, “ Beitrage,” ii. s. 110 ff, and Winer, ‘“ Real-Worterb.,” art. Saturn. 

2 This explanation has been given, in substance, by Bishop Kidder, in his 
“Demonstration of the Messias,” Part ii. p. 86, &c.; where he also answers another 
objection hinted at by Mr. Alford, who writes on ver. 14:—\“In the Hebrew text, 
Gen. xlvi. 27; Exod. i. 5; Deut. x. 22, seventy souls are reckoned, viz., sixty-six born 
of Jacob, Jacob himself, Joseph, and his two sons born in Egypt. So also Josephus, 
Ant. IL vii.4; vi v. 6. But the LXX., whom Stephen follows, insert in Gen. xlvi. 20 
an account of the children and grandchildren of Manasseh and Ephraim, five in num- 
ber; and in ver. 27 read ψυχαὶ é3dounxovtarévte—reckoning, as it appears, curiously 
enough, among the sons of Joseph, Joseph himself, and Jacob ; for these are required to 
make up the nine according to their ver. 20.” Bishop Kidder considers ‘‘ that Moses 
designs to give an account of Jacob’s whole family, or such as ‘eame out of his loins,’ 
Gen. xlvi. 6-8, and ver. 26; in order that by comparing the small number who went 
down to Egypt, with the great number who came out of that land, the protection of 
God might be the more manifest. Hence he does not include the wives of Jacob's sens, 
enumerating merely Jacob, his sons, and also Joseph’s sons, which were born hin in 


454 APPENDIX I, 


and Joseph in the possession which Jacob had purchased at Sychem, Gen 
xxxiii. 19; Josh. xxiv. 32. 


APPENDIX I. 
‘(THE CAPTAIN OF THE LORD’S HOST.” 


(Leorune IIl.—Page 127.) 


Dr. Mixv’s note on “The Captain of the Lord’s Host” (Josh. v. 18-15) 
is as follows :— 

“The question now proposed is this. Whether of these two, the Un- 
ereated or the created Angel, the Angel of Exod. xxiii. 20, or that of 
xxxilil. 2, is he who appeared to Joshua on the plain of Jericho, and an- 
nounced himself as come to him in the character of ‘Captain of the host 
of the Lord? ‘This is stated with other biblical questions by Theodoret, 
in the fourth century, as one debated among Christians: and he answers, 
on the ground of the last-cited passage of Exodus, on the latter side, against 
some, apparently a minority in the Church, who asserted the former. Quest. 
Iv. in Jesum filium Naue. Τίνα νοητέον τὸν ᾽᾿Αρχιστράτηγον 
τῆς δυνάμεως Κυρίου; τινές φασι, τὸν Θεὸν Λόγον ὀφθήναι. 
᾿Εγὼ δὲ οἴμαι Μιχαὴλ, τὸν ᾿Αρχάγγελον εἷναι" ἡνίκα γὰρ ἐπλημμέλησαν, 
ὁ τῶν ὅλων ἔφη Θεὸς" οὐ μὴ συναναβῶ μετὰ σοῦ διὰ τὸ τὸν λαὸν 
σκληροτράχηλον εἷναι: GAA’ ἀποστελῶ τὸν ἄγγε- 
λόν μον πρὸ προσώπου σον προτερόν Gov. Τοῦτον 
οἶμαι νῦν ὀφθῆναι τῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ παραθαῤῥύνοντα καὶ τὴν θείων βοήθειαν 
προσημαίνοντα. [Opera, ed. Schulze, tom. 1. p. 308.] What Theodoret 
here expresses as his own opinion, is that which (with two remarkable ex- 
ceptions which shall be presently noticed) has received the sanction of the 
ancient Church.” 

“The same is also the oldest tradition of the Jews, as exemplified in 
Jonathan’s Chaldean paraphrase of the passage in Joshua, where the Cap- 
tain of God’s host is twice termed 9°. emp yarry ard ‘an Angel sent from 
the presence of the Lord, an expression incompatible with the belief that 
he comprised that Presence in his own person.” * * * 

“ Agreeably to this view, we do not find that the Christian Fathers, 
when speaking, as they frequently do, of the Son of God as appearing in 


Egypt” (see vv. 26 and 27). But take now the words and the design of S. Stephen. 
He does not confine himself to those who came “out of Jacob’s loins:”—he plainly 
includes all those wnem Joseph called into Egypt. “Then sent Joseph and called his 
father to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls.” ‘‘ Moses tells us how 
many Jacob and his seed amounted to; omitting his sons’ wives. Stephen tells us how 
many they were that Joseph called into Egypt.” Some, therefore, in the list of Moses, 
must be left out of the number given by 8. Stephen. Joseph and his two sons could 
not be said to be called into Egypt; still less could Hezron and Hamul, the sons of 
Phares (Gen. xlvi. 12), who were not yet born. Besides, Jacob too must be consid- 
ered apart. Hence six persons are to be deducted from the number of Moses (viz. Ja- 
cob, Joseph and his two sons, with Hezron and Hamul), in order to find those who 
are reckoned by S. Stephen :—and hence sixty-four only are common to both. Adeé 
now the eleven wives of the sons of Jacob, and we get the number seventy-five giver 
by S. Stephen. 


APPENDIX I. 455 


the Old Testament, and as the special object of «he provocation of the 
Israelites,—include this appearance to Joshua among the θεοφάνειαι. But 
to this there are two distinguished exceptions. The one is Justin Martyr, 
who, after describing the appearance to Moses in the bush, says [Dial. cum 
Tryphone, p. 183, ed. Jebb], Μαρτύριον δὲ καὶ ἄλλο ὑμῖν, ὦ φίλοι, ἀπὸ 
τῶν γραφῶν δώσω, ὅτι ἀρχὴν πρὸ πάντων τῶν κτισμάτων ὁ Θεὸς γεγέν- 
νηκε Δύναμιν τινὰ ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ λογικὴν, ἥτις καὶ Δόξα Κυρίου ὑπο τοῦ 
Πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου καλεῖται, ποτὲ δὲ Ὑἱὸς, ποτὲ δὲ Σοφία, ποτὲ δὲ 
“AyyeAoc, ποτὲ δὲ Θεὸς, ποτὲ δὲ Κύριος καὶ Λόγος: ποτὲ δὲ ᾽Αρχισ- 
τράτηγον ἑαυτὸν λέγει, ἐν ἀνθρώπου μορφῇ φανέν- 
τα τῷ τοῦ Νανῆ ’1no0%.—The other is Eusebius, who, in the 
second prefatory chapter to his Ecclesiastical History, ‘concerning the pre- 
existence and Divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,’ adds to the 
indubitable instances of His manifestation as the sole image of God to 
man, this revelation of himself as Leader of the Army of God: relating 
the appearance at length from the LXX. version of Joshua, and arguing 
the identity of the person manifested with Him who appeared to Moses, 
from the command to both to loose the sandals from their feet, because the 
place on which they stood was sanctified by that Presence. Against this 
sentiment of Eusebius an ancient annotator has inserted in the margin this 
remarkable protest, preserved on account of its antiquity and its elegance 
of style by Valesius ad loc. ᾿Αλλ᾽ ἡ ἐκκλησία, ὦ ἁγιώτατε Ἐὐσέβιε, 
ἑτέρως τὰ περὶ τυύτου νομίζει Kal οὐχ ὡς σύ" τὸν μὲν γὰρ ἐν TH βάτῳ 
φανέντα τῷ Μωυσῇ θεολογεῖ τὸν δὲ ἐν ᾿Ιεριχῷ τῷ μετ᾽ αὐτὸν ὀφθέντα, 
τὸν τῶν ‘EBpaiwy ἐπιστασίαν λαχόντα, μάχαιραν ἐσπασμένον, καὶ τῷ 
Ἰησοῦ λῦσαι προστάττοντα τὸ ὑπόδημα, τοῦτον δὲ γε τὸν ἀρχάγγελον 
ὑπείληφε Μιχαήλ: καὶ δῆλον ὅτι κρεῖττον ὑπείληφε σοῦ " πόθεν ; ἐρωτη- 
θεὶς παρὰ τῇ βάτῳ φανεὶς ὃ Θεὸς ἐν εἴδει πυρὸς τῷ ἑαυτοῦ θεράποντι 
Μωυσῇ, καὶ δηλῶν ὅστις εἴη, τοῦτο αὐτῷ τρανώτατα παριστᾷ, ὅτι δὴ ὁ 
Θεὸς ἐστίν. ὃ δὲ τῷ Ἰησοῦ φανεὶς, οὐδὲ Θεὸν ἑαυτὸν, ἀλλ᾽ ᾿Αρχιστράτη- 
γον ὠνόμασε τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦτο δὲ τὸ ἀξίωμα τῆς ἀνωτάτω δυναστείας τε 
καὶ θεότητος ὑποδεέστερον ὃν, καὶ οὐκ ἀρχικὸν GAA’ ὑπαρχι- 
κόν. [Euseb. H. Εἰ. Tom. 1. pp. 17, 18, ed. Heinichen.]” 

“The interpreter of Scripture has to choose between the reasons of this 
anonymous writer, supported as they are by the unquestionably true alle- 
gation of general Catholic consent, and those of the learned historian on 
whom he is commenting. That this Angel, in describing his name and 
dignity to Joshua, so far from exhibiting any analogy with the assertion of 
Supreme Deity in Exod. iii. 6, gives a name implying only a ministerial 
superintendence, is undeniable: (for to say that tie chief of the army of 
the Lorp must be the Lorp Himself is the same as saying that the captain 
of the guard, the chief of the butlers and of the bakers, all denoted by the 
same word *@ in Gen. xxxix., xl., must mean Pharaoh the sovereign of all.) 
And the impression of this signal difference can only be removed by the 
most distinct proof that the act commanded severally in Exod, ii. 5, and 
Josh. v. 15, was in both instances similarly referred to the immediate speaker, 
and that an honor and obeisance were rendered to the latter by Josaua, 
beyond what is allowed to any created being, * * * But as, with the 
exaniple of all the earlier as well as the later Scriptures before us, it seems 
most natural and obvious to conceive that the Lorp sent this message te 


456 APPENDIX J. 


Joshua (cf. vi. 2) by the mouth of his Archangel, so there seems no dero 
gation to the Divine honor in believing, with the Fathers of old, that the 
ground was hallowed which was trodden by such an exalted servant of 
God,—and that the prostrate adoration of Joshua, like that of Daniel be- 
fore the angel in Dan. x. 15' (if it were such), was directed, not to the 
Captain of the Lorn’s host, but to the Lorp of Hosts who sent him. 

“With respect to the identity of this πάπαν τὴ with Michael, to 
whom the same title of "w is given in Dan. x. 13, 21, xii, 1 (there trans- 
lated Prince), it is sufficiently established by the functions ascribed to the 
latter in that book and in the Apocalypse, as well with respect to the 
celestial host, as to the people of God whom he defends. But there is one 
species of testimony to this identity too remarkable to be overlooked, 
though not proposed to be followed or imitated. The same divines of the 
foreign reformation, who contend for the Prince of the Lorp’s host in 
Joshua being no less than the Second Person of the Ever-blessed Trinicy, 
are most commonly impelled by the same process of argument to predicate Ὁ 
the same of the Archangel Michael also. The process may be seen by 
consulting the notes of Masius and Drusius on this place of Joshua; the 
latter of whom however shrinks, as he well may, from asserting that 
Michael (called in Dan. x. 18, one of the Primary chiefs, pen she 
pswanm), always denotes the Uncreated Word.” 


APPENDIX J. 
NABI,—ROEH,—CHOZEH. 
(Lecture IV.—PaceE 158.) 


Tuerz is, perhaps, no single point in the exegesis of the Old Testament 
respecting which the information to be gleaned from critics is so meagre, 
and so unsatisfactory, as that relating to the distinction which subsists between 
she terms min, mx, x22. That a distinction does exist is unquestionable. 
This we learn chiefly from the Books of Chronicles; in which the author 
has on all occasions assigned, with such particularity, his official title to 
each person named. E. »., “The acts of David the king, first and last, 
behold they are written in the book of Samuel the seer (mam); and in the 
book of Nathan the prophet (m»aam), and in the book of Gad the seer 
(mvmm).”—1 Chron. xxix. 29. Cf. also, Nathan “the prophet,” and Iddo 
“the seer.”—2 Chron. ix. 29. Shemaiah “the prophet” and Iddo “the 
seer.”—2 Chron. xil, 15. Isaiah “the prophet, the son of Amoz.”—2 
Chron. xxvi. 22. 

Witsius observes :—“ Queenam ergo inter hee tria nomina significa- 
tionis est diversitas? Enimvero fateor me ignorare.”* Carpzovius contents 
himself with stating that the learned profess ignorance on the subject 
quoting a conjecture of Vitringa which explains nothing, and which is des- 


* “But respecting the quality of this obeisance, see Mr. Todd’s remarks in p. 138, 
not. * of his fourth Lecture on Antichrist.” 
* “Miscell. Sacra,” lib. 1. cap. 1, 8 19. 


APPENDIX J. 457 


titute of support. Winer merely says:—‘“ All three names, Nabi, Roeh, 
Chozeh, occur toyether, but applied to different individuals, in 1 Chron, 
xxix. 29. In the Books of Chronicles this distinction is, in general, ob- 
served, and Samuel is named Roeh; Gad, Chozeh; and Nathan, Nabi.”? 
Dr. Moses Stuart has thought fit to speak contemptuously of any attempt 
to explain the use of any of these terms, and denies the existence of any 
distinction at all!* The following remarks may, perhaps, serve to express 
how the case really stands. 

Havernick* (who considers that Roeh and Chozeh have the same sig- 
nification) clearly proves that Nabi has a meaning peculiar to itself, and 
that it invariably expresses the official title of the prophets of God. On 
the other hand, the word myn (and, according to Havernick, mms), denotes 
“the act of receiving a single revelation (ct. the New Testament phrase 
ἀποκάλυψιν ἔχειν .---ἸἼ Cor. xiy. 26), but not the particular function.” Of 
this distinctive use of Nabi he gives the following examples. In 2 Kings, 
xvii. 18, we read: “The Lord testified against Israel and against Judah by 
the hand of all His Prophets (18°33), and of every kind of seers {πτῦι 59) :” 
—i. e. the prophets, as public teachers of the people, gave their testimony 
iu Israel; but, at the same time, other private individuals also received: 
communications from Gou,—the personal pronoun pointing out the dis- 
tinction between the official prophets and ordinary seers, (‘Here the 
words are rendered according to the ‘kethib” The Masorets omitted the 
pronoun because mm has no suffix; and they were either ignorant of, or 
did not observe, the distinction between the two ideas.”) Again, 1 Sam. 
xxviii, 6, the Lord answered Saul, “ Neither by dreams [1. e—employing 
part of the idea for the whole—by the non-official seers, am], nor by 
Urim [1. 6. by the High Priest; οἵ, the case of Caiaphas, supra, p. 202, 
note *], nor by prophets [i. e. by the oficial agents of the Theocracy].” 
Isaiah, too, has no less clearly pointed out the distinction : “ The Lord hath 
poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes, 


1 “Quanquam autem nonnihil discriminis inter hee tria vocabula intercedere, ex 
1 Chron. xxix. 29, satis appareat * * * quod sane casu, aut temere factum, 
nemo facile dixerit: ipsum tamen discrepantiz momentum, in quo versetur cardine, 
doctissimi virorum se ignorare fatentur. * * * Vero itaque paulo videtur similius 
mn proprie esse ἐκστατικόν, qui oculos mentis in rem, contemplationi suze oblatam, 
alte defigit, et vultu immoto in ejus intuitu heeret, 2 Reg. vi. 11; que omnis vis non 
est in voce AN", quippe que simpliciter notat qualemcunque rei speciem in phantasia 
descriptam videre, non in ecstasi tantum, sed et per quietem Gen. xxxi. 10; xli. 22, 
vocisque adeo Ax, latiorem esse significationem ; quee Vitringze erudita est hariolatio 
in ‘ Typo doctrine prophetic,’ cap.i. § 3, p. 4, qaod tamen discrimen in Scriptura ubivis 
servari, ipse vir clariss. pro certo affirmare non audet. ὃ * * Unde satis, opinor, 
constat esse quidem aliquod inter hse vocabula eque ac munia discrimen, quod 
tamen, quale sit, hodie ignoretur."—Jntrod. ad Libros Canon. V. T., par. ii 
cap. i. § 2. 

2 “ Real-Worterbuch,” art. Propheten. 

3 “ Havernick,” writes Dr. Stuart, ‘‘has labored at length to show that even the 
Scriptures themselves make a distinction—a palpable one—between N72), a prophet,— 
sn or mn, a seer. Labor surely bestowed in vain. * * * How easy to have 
prevented such a mistake as he has made, by duly consulting a Hebrew Concordance. 
Had he done this, he must have seen that Nabi, and Roeh, or Chozeh are undistin- 
guishingly (!) used to designate the very same individuals.”—The Old Test. Canon, 

. 204. 


4 “Kinleitung,” ΤῊ. τ, Abth. 1. 5. 56 δὲ 


458 APPENDIX J. 


the prophets (Ὁ 5555): and hath veiled your heads, the seers (a*¥mn).”—- 
xxix. 10; where Isaiah, as appears from the principle of “ parallelism,” has 
clearly two distinct classes of persons in view; the seers being termed 
“heads,” inasmuch as they were usually leading personages in the The- 
ocracy, either kings or priests. Observe, David “the king” is never called 
Nabi.’ 

Now, while fully adopting the principle that x»a» is a distictintive term, 
denoting those “men of God” who were officially prophets, and, therefore, 
conveying an idea altogether different from that expressed by myn,—I must 
dissent from the other branch of Hiavernick’s conclusion, viz., that mx. and 
mim are synonymous. On the contrary, the term mrs, is, I submit, simply 
equivalent to x°a3, and, consequently, as distinct from mim as xoas itself. 
This appears fiom the statement of 1 Sam. ix. 9, where the term Roeh first 
occurs as apphed to an agent of God :—* Beforetime in Israel, when a man 
went to inquire of God, thus he spake, Come, and let us go ¢o the seer: 
for he that 2s now called a prophet (8539) was beforetime called a seer 
(mas).”—words which expressly state that Aoeh was merely the ancient title 
assigned, in popular usage, to the officcal Nabi. The usage of the Old Tes- 
tameut fully confirms this view. Samuel (to whom the title x»a9 is given, 
1 Sam. iil, 20;' 2 Chron. xxxv. 18) calls himself “the seer” (mean) in 
1 Sam, ix. 19; and such, in general, is his title throughout the Books of 
Chronicles, viz., 1 Chron. ix. 22; xxvi. 28; xxix. 29. The term mtn is 
nowhere applied to him. The only other individual to whom the title 
Roeh is given in the Old Testatament is Hanani, who is called mgm in 2 
Chron, xvi. 7, 10. 

Let us now turn to the term mm. In the first place, Roeh is distin- 
guished from it precisely in the same manner as Nabi : “ Which say fo the 
seers (poem), See not ; and to the prophets (t°rm>), Prophesy not (aamn=x>) 
unto us right things,” &c.,—Isaiah, xxx. 10, a passage where the distinction 
is quite lost in the English Version, but which is exactly parallel to Isaiah 
xxix. 10, already quoted. In the next place Chozeh and Nabi are both 
applied to Jehu, the son of Hanani; who is called Nabi in 1 Kings, xvi. 7, 
12, and Chozeh in 2 Chron. xix. 2. The only other instance in which 
these titles are interchanged is that of Gad, who is called Nabi in 1 Sam. 
xxii. 5; while he is described as “the prophet (Nabi) Gad, David’s seer 
(Chozeh),” in 2 Sam. xxiv. 11. Gad is in like manner called “ David’s 
seer,” 1 Chron. xxi. 9; and “the King’s seer,” 2 Chron. xxix. 25. In 1 
Chron. xxix. 29, he is simply styled “ the seer.” With respect to these ap- 


1 This official position seems also indicated by the duties which the prophet (x"23) 
discharged. Thus, at stated times, the people were wont to assemble to hear his 
words and admonitions. The Shunamite’s husband said to her, “Wherefore wilt 
thou go to him [Elisha] to-day? it is neither new moon, nor sabbath.”—2 Kings, 
iv. 28. We are told that ‘Elisha sat in his house, and the elders sat with him.”— 
vi. 82. The ‘‘ Elders of Judah,” and the ‘“ Elders of Israel” came to Ezekiel and “sat 
before him.”—viii. 1; xiv.1. We also read:—‘“ And they come unto thee as the 
people cometh, and they sit before thee as My people, and they hear thy words, but 
they will not do them.”—Ezek. xxxiii. 31. Cf too, the obvious reference to the 
official position of the x723 in the following passages:—Jer. xiv. 18; Amos, vii. 14; 
Ps. lxxiv. 9; Dan. ix. 24; and in many other places. 

5. “ All Israel, from Dan even to Beersheba, knew that Samuel was established te 
be a Prophet (x1225) of the Lord.” 


APPENDIX K. 459 


parent exieptions, opting Havernick’s premises, I again dissent from his 
inference as to the manner in which they are to be explained. The case 
of Gad affords the clue to the difficulty; as it clearly indicates that, at- 
tached to the royal establishment, there was usually an individual styled 
“the king’s seer” (who might at the same time be a Nabi), by whom the 
Lord was wont to reveal His will on any emergency, and by whose instru- 
mentality the king could seek for the Divine assistance. Thus we read of 
“the seers (81 πη) that spake to Manasseh, in the name of the Lord God 
of Israel].”—2 Chron, xxxili. 18. With respect to the application cf the 
title Chozeh to Jehu, son of Hanani, everything, as in the case of Gad, de- 
notes that it was in his capacity of “king’s seer” that he went out to meet 
Jehoshaphat: “And Jehu, the son of Hanani, the seer went out to meet 
him, and said to king Jehoshaphat, Shouldst thou help the ungodly? 
Nevertheless there are good things found in thee,” &c.—2 Chron. xix. 2. 
Hence, therefore, I infer that both Gad and Jehu were officially prophets : 
and that each also filled the office of Chozeh in the royal household. 
(Idavernick considers that Gad was not, properly speaking, a Nabi at all: 
he does not consider the case of Jehu.’) 

If the foregoing remarks have any weight, the titles Roeh and Nabi 
equally point out the official prophet (the former term being merely the 
archaic and popular designation of an office which had been defined from 
the very first by Moses,—see, supra, p. 156, note *): while by Chozeh are 
indicated those individuals who occasionally, or for some specific purpose, 
were chosen to convey a communication from God; and, who possessed 
the prophetic gift, but not the prophetic office :—e. g. the authors of sacred 
poetry, such as Asaph (2 Chron. xxix. 30) are so called. And hence the 
Nabi might be styled Chozeh, but not conversely. 


APPENDIX K. 
“SPIRITUAL GIFTS,” 1. COR. Xii.—xiv. 


(Lecrure V.—Pace 224.) 


In the following remarks it is not by any means intended to enter upon 
a minute inquiry into the nature of those Spiritual Gifts, or Charismata, so 
often referred to in the New Testament, and especially in 1 Cor. xii., and 
xiv. My object here is merely to illustrate the fact that there are such 
“diversities of gifts,’—even of the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, 
—a fact which fully confirms, @ fortiorz, the conclusion that there also ex- 
ists an absolute ditference in kind between the Inspiration of Scripture, and 
that ordinary operation of the Holy Spirit on the hearts of all Christians 
to which the name Inspiration has likewise been assigned. 

In the Apostolic age two contrary tendencies exhibited themselves, 
which were afterwards developed into the Gnostic,” and Montanist systems. 
The former resulted from that effort of the mind of the ancient world, in 


? Havernick proves that “Iddo the seer,”—2 Chron. xii, 15, and “the prophet 


Iddo,”—2 Chron. xiii. 22, are different persons.—loc. cit. 5. 59. 
3 OL ἀντιθέσεις τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως.---Ἰ Tim. vi. 20. 


46) APPENDIX K. 


its yearnings after knowledge and dissatisfaction with the present, to appro- 
priate the treasures which the Gospel proffered to mankind ;’ it conse- 
quently aimed at incorporating into Christianity the existing elements of 
mental culture. The tendency of the latter system, on the other hand, 
was to repel and abjure what was natural: cis aim was to retain for ever 
in the Church, in their primitive energy, all the elements of the Super- 
natural. The germs of this latter extreme are prominent in that abuse of 
Spiritual Gifts against which 8. Paul directs his warning in the chapters 
under consideration. Everything connected with the operation of these 
Spiritual Gifts is now involved in the darkest obscurity. ὃ. Chrysostom, 
who lived so many centuries nearer the Apostolic age than we do, confesses 
his ignorance on the subject. His exposition of 1 Cor. xii. opens with the 
remark :—* This entire passaye is exceedingly obscure; an obscurity which 
is caused as well by our ignorance of the facts, as by the circumstance that 
what then took place happens no longer.”* He proceeds, however, to point 
out, with great acuteness, some particulars which may guide us in applying 
the Apostle’s words. The abuse of Spiritual Gifts arose, he suggests, not 
only trom a spirit of envious rivalry among those who possessed the. differ- 
ent Charismata,—an abuse not peculiar to the Corinthians, as we learn 
from Rom. xii. 6,—but also from the fact that the system of heathen 
divination prevailed extensively in Corinth, with which the converts to 
Christianity had been tempted to compare the Gifts of the Spirit of God. 
Hence,* the Apostle commences (xii. 1) :-—‘‘ Concerning the endowments 
imparted by the Spirit (τῶν Πνευματικῶν) I would not have you ignorant. 
Ye know that ye were Gentiles carried away unto these dumb idols. 
Wherefore I give you to understand,” &e. The Apostle, adds 5. Chrysos- 
tom, does not broadly state his purpose, because he wrote to persons who 
clearly understood his allusions: and to this absence of detail, throughout, 
the obscurity of the passage is chiefly owing. 

The nature of a “Spiritual Gift” (χάρισμα), in general, has been well 
defined by Neander to be “that predominant endowment (Tichtigkeit) of 
an individual in which the power and working of the Holy Ghost, Who 
animates him, manifest themselves:—the φανέρωσις τοῦ Πνεύματος (1 
Cor. xii. 7) peculiar to each.”* The comparison of the members of the 
human body, of which the Apostle avails himself (1 Cor. xii. 12-27), 
points out, moreover, that there was no capricious or arbitrary distribu- 
tion of these qualifications, but a “regulated development of the New 
Creation in a sanctified natural order.” In ch. xii. 4-6, before proceeding 
to enumerate the distinct Charismata, 8. Paul guards himself against any 
possible misconception by expressly laying down that, distinct and diverse 
though the Gifts may be, their source is still the same (see, supra, p. 223, 
note *)—viz., the Godhead Itself, to each Person of Which each particular 
Charisma can be referred, under whatever external form it may have ap- 
peared to the observer. This being premised, he proceeds, ver. 8-10, to 

? See Neander’s “ Anti-Guosticus,” Hinleit. 

? “Tn Epist. i. ad Cor. Homil. xxix.,” t. Σ΄, p. 257. 

3 Διὸ καὶ ἀρχόμενος, πρῶτον τὸ μέσον μαντείας καὶ προφητείας τίθησι.--ο 
toc cit. p. 258. 

* “Geschichte der Pflanzung der christ]. Kirche,” B. i. 5. 233, 4te. Aufl. 


δ On ver. 4, “ Now there are diversities of Gifts, but the same Spirit,” S. Chrysos« 
tom writes :—‘ And first he attends on him that had the lesser Gift, and was grieved 


APPENDIX K. 461 


give a definite ,cumeration of nine distinct Gifts which he classifies undet 
three heads (which, however, by no means correspond to the three dvas 
ρέσεις of ver. 4-6; since there, each member comprehends, as has been 
said, αἰδ the Gifts) :—the distinction being marked (1) ver. 8, by ᾧ μέν ; 
(2) ver. 9, by ἑτέρῳ δέ; (8) ver. 10, again by ἑτέρῳ dé. The change 
from ἄλλῳ to ἑτέρῳ, whereby each new catagory is introduced, places 
this beyond doubt. Meyer (tz doc.) clearly exhibits this classificatioh :-— 

I. Gifts which are to be referred to the intellectual powers :—(1) λόγος 
σοφίας ; (2) λόγος γνώσεως. 

IL. Gifts of which the condition is the zealous exhibition of Faith :— 
(1) πίστις itself. (2) The efficiency of this Faith in aets, viz., a. ἰάματα ; 
ὃ. δυνάμεις. (8) The efficiency of this Faith in words, viz., προφητεία. 
(4) Its efficiency in power of discernment, viz., διάκρισις πνεύματων. 

II. Gifts of tongues :—(1) speaking with tongues; (2) interpretation 
of tongues. 

This enumeration is preceded by the emphatic statement of the princi- 
ple that “the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man fo profit 
withal”—ver. 7: a statement which enables us to turn to ch. xiv., in which 
S. Paul discusses the violation of this principle.’ 

Let us consider, for a moment, the manner in which one of the Gifts, 
the Gift of Tongues, had been abused. An instance of this is given in ch, 
xiv. 14, a verse which Mr. Alford well explains :— 

“TO mv, μοῦ, ‘my (own) spirit, taking himself as an example, as above, 
ver. 6: a use of the word familiar to our Apostle, and here necessary on 
account of 6 νοῦς pov following. ‘When I pray in a tongue, my higher 
being, my spirit, filled with the Holy Ghost, is inflamed with holy desires, 
and rapt in prayer: but my éntedlectwal part, having no matter before it ou 
which its power can be exercised, bears no fruit to the edification of 
others’ ”* The Gift of Tongues had a twofold object :—the edification of 


on this account. ‘For wherefore,’ saith he, ‘art thou dejected? because thou hast not 
received as muchas another?? * * * Wherefore he added, ‘but the same Spirit.’ 
So that even if there be a difference in the Gift, yet is there no difference in the Giver. 
For from the same Fountain ye are drawing, both thouand he. * * * Seest thou 
(ver. 5, 6), that he implies there being no difference in the Gifts of the Father, and 
the Son, and the Holy Ghost? * * * For that which the Spirit bestows, this he 
saith that God also works; this, that the Son likewise ordains and grants.”—loc. cit. 
p- 261. (Oxf transl. p. 401.) 

1 The’ possibility of such abuse of Spiritual Gifts is declared by S. Paul himself 
where he tells us that “the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.”— 
xiv. 32. “Consider,” observes Bishop Butler, “ἃ person endued with any of these 
Gifts; for instance, that of tongues: it is to be supposed that he had the same power 
over this miraculous Gift as he would have had over it had it been the effect of habit, 
of study, and use, as it ordinarily is; or the same power over it as he had over any 
other natural endowment.”—Analogy, Part I. ch, iil. 

2 Meyer correctly observes, that, as this passage proves, πνεῦμα in ver, 2 ‘‘is not 
to be understood of the objective Holy Spirit, but of the higher spiritual being of man 
(opposed to the νοῦς [cf., supra, Appendix G, p. 446, note "]); which, however, in 
those who are inspired is filled by the Holy Spirit (Rom. viii. 16): and thus πνεύματε 
λαλεῖν (ver. 2), means—‘‘to speak by means of the activity of the higher conscious- 
ness raised above all concerns of life (iiberweltlichen) without the intervention of re- 
flection.” What is uttered, therefore, is termed μυστήρια, ----ἰ. e. its sense is hidden 
from the hearers. On the other hand, Olshausen (/n loc. 5, 713) and Beck (“ Propad. 
Entwickl.,” 5, 232) consider that the state of ecstasy, proceeding from the impulse of 
the Holy Spirit (cf. 2 Cor. xii 2; Acts, xxii. 17), is intended:—vetua μου (writee 


452 APPENDIX K. 


the individual who possessed the gift (ver. 4); and to serve “for a sign to 
them that believe not” (ver. 22). In the case described by the Apostle, 
neither end was attained: the speaker’s “understanding was unfruitful” 
(ver. 14); and the Church was not edified (cf. ver. 5): “If, therefore, there 
come in those that are unlearned (id:érat:— plain believers, i. 6. not en- 
dowed with the Gift of Tongues, see ver. 16), or unbelievers, will they not 
say that ye are mad ?’—-ver. 23. As at Pentecost the charge of drunken- 
ness had been brought, so the γλῶσσαι must sound to hearers now, as an 
unmeaning jargon. It is only when the Gifts of Class 1. (ch. xii. 8, viz., 
“the word of wisdom” and “the word of knowledge”) are possessed that 
any communication of religious truth can take place. 

The Apostle, in short, teaches that general edification could only be 
obtained when several of the single Gifts co-operated: either. by their 
combination in the same individual’ (ver. 5 and 18); or when the Gift 
possessed by one individual completed those possessed by others, as we learn 
trom ver. 26, &c. Finally, the principle, according to which all Scriptural 
Gifts should be employed, is defined in the words, “ God is not the author 
of confusion but of peace” (ver. 33); and on it is founded the general 
regulation, “ Let all things be done unto edifying” (ver. 26), which 5. Paul, 
in the verses that follow, applies to the case before him.’ 


Olshausen on ver. 14)=70 IIv. Θεοῦ ἐν éuoi:—and these writers compare λαλεῖ 
μυστήρια with ἀῤῥητα pyywata—2 Cor. xii. 4. 

“Tet him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret” 
(ver. 13), i. e. pray for the Gift of interpretation,—iva διερμηνεύῃ. Meyer, on the 
other hand, appealing to the connexion of προσεύχεσθαι (ver. 14), by yap, to mpocev= 
χέσθω in ver. 13, translates, “Let him pray with the view afterwards to expound 
what he had spoken with the tongue.”—“ For i J pray with a tongue, my spirit 
prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful” (ver. 14). Mr. Alford thus explains 
ver. 15: ‘“ ‘I will pray with the (my) spirit; I will pray also with my mind’ (i. e. will 
interpret my prayer for the benefit of myself and the Church), &c. This. resolution 
or expression of self-obligation evidently leads to the inference by and by clearly ex- 
pressed, ver. 28, that if he could not pray τῷ voi, he would keep silence. ψαλῶ] hence 
we gather that the two departments in whlch the Gift of tongues was exercised 
were prayer and praise. On the day of Pentecost it was confined to the latter of 
these.” (Observe that Tischendorf here omits yap; and also reads simply ἑτέρῳ, in 
xii. 9, 10. 

? Mr. hie explains this application :—“ Ver. 26, ψαλμόν] most probably a hymn 
of praise, to sing in the power of the Spirit, as did Miriam, Deborah, Simeon, &e., see 
ver, 15. Διδαχήν] an ‘exposition of doctrine’ or moral teaching: belonging to the 
Gift of prophecy, as indeed do also ψαλμ. and ἀποκάλυψιν, the latter being something 
revealed to him to be prophetically uttered.” The general rule, ver. 26, “ Let all 
things be done unto edifying” is applied to the several gifts:—In ver. 27, 28, to the 
speaking with tongues. [Meyer explains ver. 27:—‘‘xard δύο) &e. sc. λαλεΐίτωσαν (as 
vy. 11, 16);—‘Let him know that in any assembly two, or at the most three, are to 
appear speaking with tongues:—xal ἀνὰ jépoc)—‘and this, too, in succession, one 
after the other, not several at once:’—xai εἷς διερμ.) ‘and let one (not several) state 
the exposition:’ ‘unus aliquis, qui ¢d@ donum habet’ (Grotius); and it appears from 
ver. 13, that the speaker with a tongue might himself interpret. Ver. 28, ‘but in 
case no interpreter is present, let the speaker with tongues keep silence; in private de- 
votion, let him speak to himself and to God.’”] Ver. 29-33 give the regulations as to 
prophecy. [Meyer on ver. 29.—‘ ‘Let the prophets speak two or three’ (the ἀνὰ 
μέρος, ver. 27, is rendered specially prominent, ver. 30), (καὶ of ἄλλοι diaxp.) ‘and let 
the other prophets (i. e. who do not come to speak) judge’ (1. Θ. whether what has been 
said proceeds or not from the Divine Spirit). Thus we see that the Charisma of ‘ dise 
cerning of Spints’ (with which even those who were not prophets might be endowed), 


APPENDIX K. 463 


In th > case of the Apostles this end was attained in the highest degree. 
All possibility of abuse.was precluded by the union, in their persons, of the 
several Charismata. In their inward life personal consciousness (νοῦς), 
and spiritual activity (πνεῦμα) co-operated. 85. Paul, who says that he 
spoke with tongues more than all the others (ver. 18), had already stated, 
“TI will pray with the (my) spirit, and I will pray with the (my) under- 
standing also” (ver. 15). In the Apostles their spontaneous feelings, and 
their reception of the several Spiritual Gifts, were harmoniously and mutu- 
ally balanced. The full energy of the Spirit was infused into each element 
of their being, and was, theretore, apprehended with a clear consciousness, 
Consequently, when they acted as instruments of God for the edification 
of the universal Church, they were supplied with every needful qualifica- 
tion. To adopt S. Paul’s own conclusion (xiv. 18, 19), their understanding 
(νοῦς) was enlightened so as to be in perfect accordance with the Spiritual 
influence. For the attainment of this end the following gradation in the 
conferring of Spiritual Gifts had been (as he points out in ver. 6) neces- 
sarily observed :— Revelations, or new communications of Divine Truth 
(ἀποκαλύψεις) had been conveyed to their minds; unclouded insight, and 
clear perception (γνῶσις) had next been granted; the power of expound- 
ing (προφητεία)" had also been conferred, and of expressing what others 
could only utter in an unknown tongue; to all which had been added the 
Gift of doctrinal application (didayn).’ (See Beck, loc. cit., 85, 234.) 

Hence we perceive that, while in those who received the Gifts of the 
Spirit 7x and for themselves, the separate Gifts (“the Spirit dividing to 
every man severally as He will”—xii. 11) appeared singly, or two or more 
combined (xii. 8-10) ;—nevertheless, in order to secure that such Charis- 
mata should be productive, in any degree, for general edification, several of 
them must have co-operated. Taken singly, they were not designed to 
propagate the Gospel ; but, under due restrictions, to adorn it before the 
world, and to support individual members of the Church during her early 
struggles. Such was the case of the Tyrian prophets (Acts, xxi. 4), who 
had not “the word of knowledge” (cf. what has been said on this subject, 
supra, p. 43); or of S. Philip who had “ the Gift of healing” (Acts, vin. 6), 
but who could not confer the Holy Ghost by the “laying on of hands” 


(xii. 10), was in certain cases combined with the Gift of prophecy”]. Ver. 30.] 
“ «But if a Revelation shall have been made to another (prophet) while sitting by, 
let the first (who was prophesying) hold his peace’ (give place to the other: but 
clearly not as ejected by the second in any disorderly manner: probably, by being 
made aware of it, and ceasing his discourse). Ver. 31, 32.] He shows that the ὁ 
πηῶτος σιγάτω is no impossibility, but in their power to effect: ‘For ye have the 
vower, one by one, all to prophesy (i. e. you have power to bring about this result— 
you can be silent if you please), in order that all,’ ἄορ. 32.] ‘And’ (not, for: but a 
parallel assertion to the last, ‘Ye have power, &c., and’) the spirits of (the) prophets 
(i. 6. their own spirits filled with the Holy Spirit) are subject to (the) prophets.’ " 
(See, supra, p. 461, note *.) 

1 Cf. S. Chrysostom’s remark, quoted above, respecting the question which 8, Paul 
here discusses, with what we know of the nature of heathen divination (see, supra, 
p. 84, and p. 193, note '); and we can feel little doubt as to the sense in which the 
Corinthians must have understood the word προφητεία -:----ἰοῦ to the mind of tne 
Gentile world the προφήτης was no more than the interpreter of the inspired 

ὦντις. 
ει See, supra, p. 197, ot the relation between Revelation and Prophecy, knowledge 
and teaching. 


464 APPENDIX L. 


(ver. 14, 15); or, again, of the other inferior teachers “Judas and Silas, 
who being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with man 
words and confirmed them.”—Acts, xv. 32. With respect to this last Gift, 
special care was requisite :—so much so that the distinct Charisma of “ dis- 
cerning of spirits” was added for the purpose of checking any abuse. Thus 
8. Paul wrote to the Thessalonians: “Quench not the Spirit: despise not 
prophesyings: prove all things—rdvta δὲ δοκιμάζετε. (1 Thess. v, 
19-21) ; words which, as the context shows, can only refer to the διάκρισις 
πνεύματων of 1 Cor, xii. 10; and to which 5. John also alludes: “Be- 
loved, believe not every spirit; but try (δοκιμάζετε) the spirits whether 
they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” 
—1S8. John, iv. 1. “It was only im the Apostles,” writes Olshausen on 1 
Cor. xiv. 29, “ that the power of the Spirit revealed itself with an energy 
so mighty, and of so many aspects, that all error was removed. In their case 
alone one Gift immediately completed another, so that their expressions were 
subjected to no further διώκρισις."--- Commentar, B. iii. s. 728. 

It follows from the foregoing remarks as an additional, and no less im- 
portant, result, that, notwithstanding the preservation of the human element 
in the composition of the different portions of Scripture, ample provision 
was ade for securing to the sacred writers perfect freedom from error of 
every kind. And this was effected by means of the principle that the dis- 
tinct Charismata co-operated, whenever the general edification of the Church 
required. See, supra, Lecture vii. p. 329. 


APPENDIX L. 
THE ORIGIN OF THE SYNOPTICAL GOSPELS, 


(Lecrure VII.—Pace 295.) 


Tue following statement of the different theories which have been pro- 
posed for the purpose of accounting for the “origin” of the Gospels, un- 
accompanied as it is by any comment, will, perhaps, of itself justify the 
remarks in which 1 have alluded (p. 295, &c.) to this branch of criticism. 
I am far from insinuating that the several hypotheses are on a par in point 
of ingenuity, or of literary merit; but it can scarcely be asserted that any 
among them possesses much superiority over its fellows on the score of 
probability. 

I. The hypothesis that the Evangelists made use of a common docu- 
ment or common documents.’ 

Without dwelling upon the various hints thrown out in the different 
works which have appeared between more recent times and the days of Le 
Clerc, who first suggested the idea of a common Greek source of the Syn 
optical Gospels; or of Lessing, who (in 1778) conceived the idea of a 
common Syriac or Chaldaic original,—it will be sufficient to start from :Π 6 


* See Marsh’s “ Dissertation on the Origin and Composition of our three first Gow 
pels,” to be found in vol. iii. part 1, of his translation of Michaelis’ “ Introduction to 
the New Testament.” Also Ebrard’s “‘ Wissenschaftliche Kritik der evang. Geschichte,” 
a. 5 ff 


APPENDIX L. 465 


hypothesis of Eickhorn, with whom the modern aspect of the question may 
be fairly said to have commenced. 

Eichhorn at first assumed the existence of an “ Original Gospel” in the 
Aramaic dialect. A particular recension of this document (which he named 
A) was the basis of the Gospel of S. Matthew. To a second recension, 
B, 8. Luke’s Gospel owes its origin. A third, C, arising from a comparison 
of A and B, was employed by 8. Mark. In fine, 8. Mark and S. Luke, in 
addition to these distinct sources, both made use of a fourth recension, D, 
with which S. Matthew had not been acquainted. 

According to this hypothesis, A, B, C, and D, were written in Aramaic ; 
it afforded, consequently, no explanation of the agreement of the Evange- 
lists in single Greck expressions (6. g. πτερύγιον τοῦ ἱεροῦ, S. Matt. iv. 5; 
8. Luke, iv. 9; ἐπιούσιος, S. Matt. vi. 11; S. Luke, xi. 8, &c.) To meet 
this difficulty, Bishop Marsh’ suggested another hypothesis “ compared 
with which the former appears as an innocent child.” (Ebrard.) He as- 
sumed (1) an Aramaic original document x. (2) A translation of this into 
Greek, ἃ (8) This latter document with certain additions (R+A+4). 
(4) A variation of this (#+B+). (5) A combination of Nos. (3) and 
(4) was the foundation of S. Mark’s Gospel (R+A+B+a+{). (6) 
No. (8), with other additions, was the foundation of S. Matthew’s 
(1 +A+I+a+y). (7) No. (4), with other additions, was the fourda- 
tion of S. Luke’s (R+B+I+6+y). (8) An auxiliary document 3 wa. 
employed by S. Matthew and S. Luke. “The genealogy, when simplified,” 
writes Ebrard, “ appears thus :” 

δὲ 
απ GE LL = WRG 
&+m Ἀπ 
a eee ee 
&-+m-+r R+m+n ἈΞ ΠΤ 
S. Matthew. S. Mark. S. Luke. 
Where m=A+a, n=B+/, r=T'+y+2. 


“Since this hypothesis,” continues Ebrard, “ was evidently still far too 
simple, Eichhorn devised a second :” 


1. An Aramaic document. 

2. Its Greek translation (=a). 

8.=A. A recension of 1.—S. Matthew. 

4.=A Greek translation of 3, in which 2 was made use of (=a’). 
5.=B. Another recension of 1.—S. Luke. 

6.=C. A document resulting from A and B—S. Mark. 

7.=D. A third recension of 1.—S. Matthew and S. Luke. 


’ «Tet x denote all those parts of the xLu. general sections, which are contained 
in all three Evangelists [see, supra, p. 295]. Let a denote the additions made to x in 
the Gospels of 5. Matthew and 8S. Mark, but not in that of S. Luke. β, The addi- 
tions made to καὶ in the Gospels of 8. Mark and S. Luke, but not in that of 5, Mate 
thew. y. The additions made to x in the Gospels of S. Matthew and S. Luke. but 
not in that of 5. Mark. A. Whole sections found in the Gospels of 5. Matthew a..d 
5. Mark, but not in that of S. Luke. B. Whole sections found in the Gospels of S. 
Mark and S. Luke, but not in that of 5. Matthew. TI. Whole sections found in the 
Gospeis of §. Matthew and S. Luke, but not in that of S. Mark.”—Marsh’s Disserta- 
tion, p. 148. 


30 


466 APPENDIX L. 


8.—A translation of D, in which 2 was made use of (==d). 
9.=E. An Aramaic Gospel of 5. Matthew (A+D). 
10. The Greek form of S. Matthew, arising from E, with an abridgment 
of 4 and 8. 
11. S. Mark, arising from C; use having been made of 4 and 5. 
12. S. Luke, the result of B and 8. 


Simplified, the matter stands thus :— 


RG 
| aah aa 
A—a B é6—D 


See ee 
S. Mark. 8. Luke. 


Ῥ-.Ἃὀο-..ς.-.οΟ..λ.ς.-ς-.ς.ς. 


----Ὸ.---ς-ςς-.-... 
S. Matthew in Greek. 


S. Matthew in Hebrew. 


IT. Such views having soon lost favor with critics, it was next attempted 
to explain the convergence of the Gospels by assuming that each Evange- 
list was acquainted with, and made use of, the Gospel or Gospels which 
had been written earlier than his own. The question, however, at once 
arose, in what order did this take place? and hence, from the very nature 
of the case, this hypothesis branched into siz divisions, each of which has 
had its advocates :— 


1. S. Matt., the first. S. Mark, the second. S. Luke, the third.’ 
Pies Add ΑΙ ae Dake Oe τ να S. Mark, πα 
SS Markee eae Orissa τ τ 5: Luke, π΄ ας 
we) Marks eS ΞΡ ΠΡ τε rye S. Matt. 61) "6 
SoS. ΤΠ οὶ πὸ ες S Μασ ς So Mark “5) «ὁ 
on. uke, ae τ ale, het YS S. Matte) ie 


ΠῚ. The third hypothesis, although suggested at an earlier period, owes 
its celebrity chiefly to the learned essay of Gieseler, so often quoted in the 
preceding pages—“ Historisch-kritischer Versuch uber die Enstehung und 
die frihesten Schicksale der schriftlichen Evangelien,” Leipzig, 1818. In 
it Gieseler maintained that, for several years after our Lord’s death, the 
Apostles,—at least the majority of them,—lived together at Jerusalem. 
The events of their Master’s life, as well as his discourses, naturally formed 
a constant subject of their conversation; and thus, mutually aiding each 
other’s reminiscences, facts and doctrines became fixed in their memory. 
Hence arose a permanent type of oral teaching, diversified by the private 
recollections of the different Apostles: and from this traditional source tbe 
Gospels in process of time were reduced to their present written form.” 

It is unnecessary to recount how later writers (e. g. Olshausen, “ Bibl, 


& Ot He Co εὖ 


? Townson and Hug advocate this aspect of the present hypothesis. 

? It may be well to mention here the just remark of Thiersch (‘‘ Versuch der 
Herstell.,” 5, 120), that this theory of Gieseler, according to which the composition 
of the Gospels has been brought down to the latest possible period consistently with 
ees statements, has formed the point of transition to the mythical hypothesis of 

trauss. 


APPENDIX M. 467 


Comnient.” B. i. Einleit., § 3) have combined this “ Tradition-theory” with 
that of the successive use, by the Evangelists, of the earlier written 
Gospels. 

In addition to the preceding, the following theory has lately been pro- 

osed :— 

ἂν: Ist. Several of the Apostles, including Matthew, Peter, and John, 
committed to writing accounts of the transactions of our Lord and his 
Disciples in the language spoken by them, i. e. Syro-Chaldaic or Aramaic, 
known in the New Testament and the works of the Fathers as Hebrew. 

“2d. When the Apostles were driven by persecution, from Judea, a 
history of the life of our Lord was drawn up from the original memoirs, 
in Hebrew and in Greek, by the Apostle Matthew, for the use of the Jewish 
converts—the Greek being the same as the Gospel according to Matthew. 

“3d. S. Luke drew up, for the use of Theophilus [but see, supra, Lec- 
ture vii. p. 293, note °], a new life of our Lord, founded upon, the authority 
of eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word,—including the Hebrew memoir 
of Peter, and the Greek Gospel of Matthew. 

“4th. After Peter’s death, or departure from Rome (ἔξοδον), 8. Mark 
translated the memoir, written by Peter, into Greek. 

“5th. John, at a still later period, composed his Gospel from his own 
or yinal memoirs, omitting much that was already narrated by the other 
¥ ungelists, for reasons assigned by himself (xxi. 25).” "ἢ 


APPENDIX M. 
DID 85. MATTHEW WRITE IN GREEK ἢ 


(Lecture VIII—Pace 342.) 


“Tr any statement of the ancients,” observes Thiersch,’ “can lay claim 
to our confidence as being primitive, universal, and never contested, it is 
this—that Matthew wrote his Gospel in the Hebrew language. On this 
point all writers, including those best informed, are agreed: but as to how 
the Greek copy, received in the universal Church, has come into existence, 
they leave us (to all appearance at least) strangely in the dark. In its 
place the Apocryphal Gospel of the Hebrews—that Proteus of criticism— 
lets itself be seen in enigmatically changing forms, and is by many of 
the Hebrew Christians asserted to be the original document written by 
Matthew.” 

Such appears to be the natural result to which external evidence leads 
when we inquire as to the original form of our Gospel; ond which, not- 
withstanding the ingenious efforts of Hug® to prove that S. Matthew never 
wrote in Hebrew, is generally received by critics as the only legitimate 
conclusion. 

The evidence may be briefly stated :—We learn from Eusebius (iii 39), 
that S. Papias, bishop of Hlierapolis, (circ. A. Ὁ. 110—’lwdvvov μὲς 


? “ Dissertation on the Origin and Connexion of the Gospels,” by James Smith, Hey 
of Jordan Hill, F. R. S., p. xxv. London: 1853. 
* “Versuch der Herstell.,” 5. 185. * “ Kinleitung,” Th, ii. s. 14 ff 


468 APPENDIX M. 


ἀκουστὴς, ἸΤολυκάρπου δὲ étaipoc—s. Irenzus, lib. v. xxxiii. p. 333) was 
the author of a work wherein several particulars were detailed respecting 
the contemporaries of the Evangelists, and the composition of the Gospels, 
and in which “John the Presbyter”* was reterred to as the chief authority. 
The statement of S. Papias commences thus, Kai τοῦθ᾽ ὁ πρεσβύτερος 
ἔλεγε, and it proceeds to describe the origin of S. Mark’s Gospel. Ταῦτα 
μὲν οὗν, adds Eusebius, ἱστόρηται τῷ ἸΠαπίᾳ περὶ τοῦ Μάρκου. περὶ δὲ 
τοῦ Ματθαίου ταῦτ᾽ εἴρηται" Ματθαῖος μὲν οὖν ‘EGpaids διαλέκτῳ τὰ 
λόγια συνετάξατο. ἡρμήνευσε δ᾽ αὐτὰ" ὡς ἣν δυνατὸς [ἠδύνατο] ἕκασ- 
toc.—(ap. Routh. “ Rel. Sacre,” vol. i. p. 18.) This passage,’ which must 
be regarded as the keystone of the controversy, may be designated (A). 

S. Ireneeus writes:*—'O μὲν δὴ Ματθαῖος ἐν τοῖς “Ἑβραίοις τῇ 
ἰδίᾳ διαλέκτῳ αὐτῶν, καὶ γραφὴν ἐξήνεγκεν Ἑϊὐαγγελίου, 
τοῦ Πέτρου καὶ τοῦ Παύλου ἐν Ρώμῃ εὐαγγελιζομένων, καὶ θεμελιούν- 
των τὴν ἐκκλησίαν .----οηΐ. Her. lib. mt. ὁ. i., p. 174. 

There are many other vouchers for this fact. E. g. Origen (ap. Euseb. 
“ Hist. Ecel.,” lib. vi. 6. 25, p. 290.; οἵ, Origen’s “Comm. in Joann.,” t. iv. 
Ρ. 132); Eusebius himself (“ Hist. Eccl.,” lib. iii. 6. 24, p. 116); and S, 
Jerome in several places, of which the following must for the present suf- 
fice :—‘‘ Mattheus * * * primus in Judea propter eos, qui ex Cir- 
cumcisione crediderant, Evangelium Christi Hebraicis literis verbisque 
composuit :* quod quis postea in Grecum transtulerit, non satis certum 
est..—De Vir, Illustr. cap. iii, t. 11. p. 819. This passage I shall 
call (B). 

is ἊΝ foregoing passages must be added the strictly independent, and, 
therefore, from the nature of this controversy, most important, testimony 
of S. Pantzenus (A. 1). 181). Eusebius tells us that 8. Pantznus preached 
the Gospel as far as India; and that he there found some persons ac- 
quainted with S. Matthew’s Gospel, to whom S. Bartholomew the Apostle 


1 “ Halloixius, ‘Vit. S. Papi, p. 661, Vitt. P. P. Oriental.” qui ait, hunc Joannem 
unum fuisse 6 LXX. discipulis.s * * * Nec amplius habeo, preter ‘Constit. Apost.’ 
illud in lib. vii. ο. 46, quod tradit constituisse Joannem Apostolum cognominem hune 
suum Ephesi episcopum.”—Routh. Fel. Sacr., vol. i. p. 36. 

3 Hug, who considers the testimony of S. Papias to be of no value, but who canes 
not reject that of John the Presbyter, admits that we must ascribe to John the state= 
ment of this passage as to S. Mark; he attempts to show, however, that we are not 
authorized to understand it as implying that S. Papias derived from the same source 
the information which it gives with reference to S. Matthew.—Wce. cit. s. 16. 

3 Hug endeavors to evade the force of these words by arguing that this statement 
is but a repetition of that of S. Papias, whom S. Irenzeus venerated (which of itself 
is surely some reason why the testimony of S. Papias should be regarded of weight) ; 
and, therefore, that it cannot be considered as independent evidence (8. 17). It is cus 
rious to notice, however, that, when subsequently quoting the words with which the 
passage in the teat concludes, viz., μετὰ δὲ τῶν τούτων [scil.S. Paul and S. Peter] ἔξοδον, 
Μάρκος ὁ μαθητὴς καὶ ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου, κ. τ. A.,—Hug should write: “This witness 
(S. Irenzeus), whose veracity has never been impeached, informs us as follows respect 
ing Mark’s Gospel,” &¢.—Ibid., § 16, s. 61. 

4 §, Jerome founded upon this fact an important apologetic argument. Julian had 
urged as an objection against Christianity, that ‘quod de Israel scriptum est [Hos. 
xi. 1, cf. S. Matt. ii. 15], Mattheus Evangelista ad Christum transtulit, ut simplicitati 
eorum gui de Gentibus crediderant, illuderet.” S. Jerome replies :—‘ Cui nos breviter 
respondebimus; primum Mattheum Evangelium Hebreis literis edidisse, quod non 
poterant legere nisi hi, qui ex Hebreis erant, &c.”—Comm. in Osee, t. Vi. p. 123, 


APPENDIX M. 469 


had already preached, αὐτοῖς τε ‘EGpaiwy γράμμασι τὴν τοῦ Ματθαίοι 
καταλεῖψαι γραφήν" ἣν καὶ σώζεσθαι εἰς τὸν δηλούμενον χρόνον .--- Ηϊδί, 
Eccl. lib. v. ὁ. 10, p. 223. 

The evidence, of which a sketch has thus been given,’ must be held to 
establish the fact that S. Matthew originally wrote in Hebrew, or rather 
Syro-Chaldaic ; on which the important question arises:—Whence the 
Greek form of the Gospel which bears his name? Now, while it must be 
admitted that Hug has altogether failed in shaking the evidence which 
has been adduced on this subject, he has, at the same time, urged with 
great force many considerations which prove that owr Gospel of S. Mat- 
thew is itself an original work; and that S. Matthew was its author. As 
Townson has truly observed: ‘ There seems more reason for allowing two 
originals than tor contesting either.” The following arguments, in support 
ot this opinion, may be assigned :— 

Olshausen has drawn attention to the fact that: “ While all the Fa- 
thers of the Church declare Matthew to have written in Hebrew, they all, 
notwithstanding, make use.of the Greek text, as of genuine Apostolic origin, 
without remarking what relation the Hebrew Matthew bore to our Greek 
Gospel :—for that the oldest Fathers of the Church did not possess Mat- 
thew’s Gospel in any other form than that in which we now have tt, is 
fully settled.”* A few illustrations of this important fact may be 

riven :—* 

᾿ Origen, who, in the passage referred to above, had stated that “ Four 
Gospels only are admitted without controversy by the Church of God” 
(cf. supra, Lecture ii. p. 56, note '), and had described S. Matthew as 
γράμμασιν ‘EGpaixoic συγτεταγμένον ----ἰς seems in his book ‘On Prayer,’ 
to suppose it published by hiin in Greek too; for, in discoursing on the 
word ᾿Εἰπεούσιον, he considers it as a word formed by the Evangelist him- 
self.” * 

S. Cyril of Jerus., when arguing with the Jews in proof of the Resur- 
rection, having observed that the Apostles were all Jews, asks :—Acd τί 
οὗν τοῖς ᾿Ιουδαίοις ἀπιστεῖτε ; Nay, he adds, Ματθαῖος, ὃ γράψας τὸ 
Εὐαγγέλιον, “EBpaids γλώσσῃ τοῦτο ἔγραψε .---Οαἰροϊοδὶ5, xiv. § 15, 
p. 212. But, within a few pages, he quotes the Greek Gospel under 8. 
Matthew’s name: Ἔν μὲν yap τῷ κατὰ Ματθαῖον Ebayyediw γέγραπται" 
πλὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀπ’ ἄρτι ὄψεσθε τὸν Ὑἱὸν τοῦ ’AvO. kK. τ. λ. [S. Matt. 





1Α complete summary of the evidence on this subject will be found in Michaelis’ 
“Introd. to the N. T.,” Marsh’s ed., vol. iii. part i page 116, &e. 

2 “The Genuineness of the New Testament writings” (Clarke’s For. Theol. Lib. 

. XXVili). 

ee Cf. the following testimonies from the first two centuries:—Clemens Alex. quotes 
&. Matt. i. 17, with the words:—év τῷ κατὰ Maré. KbayyeAiw.—Strom. i. p. 409. S. 
Trenzeus quotes verbatim ὃ. Matt. i. 1, and 18, as follows:—Marfaioc δὲ τὴν κατ᾽ 
ἄνθρωτον αὐτοῦ γέννησιν κηρύττει, λέγων" κ, τ. A.—Cont. Her, τι. ὁ. xi., p. 191 (ef 
supra p. 90, note’). So also Tertullian:—‘“Ipse in primis Matthzeus, fidelissimus 
Evangelii commentator * * * ita exorsus est; ‘Liber geniture Jesu Christi, 
Filii David, Filii Abraham.’ "—De Carne Christi, § 22, p. 376. 

4 Townson, “ Discourse” ii. § 2, p. 29. The words of Origen are:—Ti δὲ καὶ τὸ 
ἐπιούσ'ον, ἤδη κατανοητέον * * * συνηνέχθησαν γοῦν ὁ Ματθαῖος καὶ ὁ 
Λουκᾶς περὶ αὐτῆς μηδαμῶς διαφερούσης, αὐτὴν ἐξενηνοχότες.-----)6 Orutivne, v. ἃ, 
p 245. 


470 APPENDIX ΚΜ. 


xxvi. 64]..—-Zbid. § 29, p. 220 (cf. too his literal transcription of 5, Matt 
i, 1, “ Catech.” xi. § 5, p. 151). 

Eusebius, commenting on Ps. lxxviii., observes that the phraseology of 
the LXX. is different from that employed by S. Matthew, who, himselr 
master of the Hebrew language, has cited the words according to his own 
translation :—O δὴ διδάσκει καὶ ἡ τῶν ἱερῶν EvayyedAiwv γραφὴ, δι’ ἧς 
εἴρηται, ὅτι πάντα ταῦτα ἐλάλησεν ὃ ᾿Ιησοῦς ἐν παραβολαῖς τοῖς ὄχλοις, 
ἐν 7. A, [S. Matt. xiii. 35]. * * * Αντὸ γὰρ τοῦ! P0éyFopat 
προβλήματα an’ ἀρχῆς, Ἑβραῖος ὧν ὁ Ματθαῖος, oikeiag 
ἐκδόσει κέχρηται εἰπών: ἐρεύξομαι κεκρυμμένα ἀπὸ 
καταβολῆς - ἀνθ᾽ οὗ ὃ μὲν ᾿Ακύλας, ὀμβρήσω αἰνίγματα ἐξ ἀρχῆθεν, 
ἐκδέδωκεν" ὃ δὲ Σύμμαχος, ἀναβλῦσω κ. τ. A.—Comm. in Psalm. 
(ed. Montfaucon, p. 468)" 

Having quoted this statement, Hug’ refers to the objection that, as S. 
Matthew had written 7x Syriac, the version of the Psalmist’s words given 
in our Greek Gospel is made not from the Hebrew, but from the Syriac: 
and he appeals, in reply, to the manner in which Eusebius compares this 
version with that of Aquila; adding :—“ Did Matthew then write his Gos- 
pel in Syriac, and cite passages in it from the Old Testament in the Gireck 
language ?”—loe. cit. s. 19. 

In connexion with the argument founded upon this passage from Euse- 
bius, and still more unambiguously intimating that S. Matthew himself 
translated the Hebrew text of the Psalm into Greek, cf. the quotation from 
S. Jerome prefixed to Lecture vii. S. Jerome, it is true, says in the passage 
(Β) that it is not quite certain who was the translator of the Hebrew 
Gospel. It would appear, too, from many parts of his writings, that he 


1 The following remarks of Eusebius have also been quoted. He is discussing the 
relation of 8. Matt. xxviii. 1, to S. John, xx. 1:—‘O μὲν γὰρ Εὐαγγελιστὴς Ματθαῖος 
‘EGpaidt γλώττῃ παρέδωκε τὸ Ἐαγγέλιον" ὁ δὲ ἐπὶ τὴν Ελλήνων φωνὴν μεταβαλὼν αὐτὸ, 
τὴν ἐπιφώσκουσαν ὥραν εἰς τὴν κυριακὴν ἡμέραν, ὀψὲ σαββάτων προσεῖπεν. On this, he 
proceeds to argue as if the Greek term ὀψέ had proceeded from S. Matthew; as well 
as from the use of the plural, σαββάτων :-τ-τοὕτως οὖν ὁ Ματθαῖος τὸν καιρὸν τὸν 
ἐπιφαύσκοντα εἰς τὴν ἐῶ τῆς κυριακῆς ἡμέρας, σαββάτων ὀψὲ ὠνόμασεν" οὐκ εἰπὼν 
ἑσπέραν τοῦ σαββάτου, οὐδὲ ὀψὲ σαββάτου .--- Οιιαδί. ad Marin. (ap. A. Mai, 
“Script. Vet. Nova Coll.” t. i. pp. θ4--66). 

* On Hug’s inference from this passage,—to which he considers it “hardly neces- 
sary to allude,’—Dr. Davidson (and here he follows Meyer, ‘Evang. des Matt,,” 
Hinleit., s. 7) observes: “But the term ἔκδοσις does not signify translation. It de- 
notes recension. The phrase 'ESpaioc ὦν indicates the native country of the Apostle, 
and so determines the sense of οἰκεῖος. Matthew, being a Hebrew, used that recen- 
sion of the Old Testament text, which was currert in his native land; and had the 
Hebrew words to which ἐρεύξομαι κεκρυμμένα, κ. τ. A., and not φθέγξομαι, κ. τ. A. cor- 
respond.”—Jnirod. to the New Test., vol. i. p. 12. Were such a principle indeed true, 
or capable of even probable proof, it would afford a simple means of accounting in all 
cases for the form in which quotations from the Old Testament meet us in the New. 
It would at once entitle us, on the authority of the inspired writers of the New Tes- 
tament, to alter the Hebrew text in conformity with the “recension” to which our 
Lord and his Apostles must (on Dr, Davidson’s supposition) have given their sanc- 
tion. The existence of such “recension,” however, has yet to be proved: and I do 
not find that Dr. Davidson has availed himself of this principle in his useful discus 
sion of “Quotations from the Old Testament in the New.” (‘Sacred Hermeneutics,” 
ch. xi. pp. 334-515.) But the matter is placed beyond discussion by the use of 
ἐκδέδωκεν in this very passage, to signify the manner in which Aquila interpreted 
or rendered the same woras. 


APPENDIX Μ. 471 


regarded S. Matthew’s Hebrew Gospel as agreeing substantially with that 
received by the Nazarenes and Ebionites, and which he himself had trans- 
lated. ἘΜ, g.—‘In Evangelio, quo utuntur Nazareni et Ebionite (quod 
nuper in Grecum de Hebrzo sermone transtulimus, et quod vocatur a 
plerisque Matthzi authenticum) &e.”—Comment. in Matt. xii. 13, t. vii, 
p- 77." On all such statements two remarks are to be made:—(1) S. 
Jerome would surely not have translated this document into Greek, had it 
not differed considerably trom the Canonical Gospel. (2) Whenever S, 
Jerome refers to the Gospel of S. Matthew, he quotes it according to our 
present Greek text; and when he introduces diverging statements of the 
“ Hebrew Gospel,” he does so in a manner which proves that he regarded 
it as of no authority whatsoever. ‘Thus, when alluding to the difference 
between 8. Matthew’s mode of giving an Old Testament passage and the 
translation of the LXX. (e. g. ch. ii. 6) he writes: “Quanta sit inter 
Mattheum et LXX. verborum ordinisque discordia, magis admiraberis, si 
Hebraicum videas, in quo ita scriptum est,” &e—Ad Pammach., Ep. lvii. 
t.1. p. 811. And again, discussing what the rending of the Veil of the 
Temple might mean, he incidentally alludes to a statement of the “ He- 
brew Gospel,”—of which he takes no further notice; and then proceeds 
with his examination of the Greek text: “In Evangelio autem quod He- 
braicis literis scriptum est, legimus, non velum Templi scissum; sed super- 
liminare Templi mire magnitudinis corruisse.”"—Ad Hedibiam, Ep. cxx. 
t. i p. 825. 

ts which considerations if we add the fact that all Versions, even the 
ancient Syriac (in which dialect, be it observed, the Gospel is said to have 
been originally written),’ are taken from the present Greek text of 5. Mat- 
thew, and not from an unknown Aramaic original,—it clearly follows, (1) 
that the Hebrew Gospel can never have been regarded as Canonical; (2) 
that it belonged to that class of writings to which I have referred, supra, 
Lecture ii. p. 54, &c., which, although composed by inspired men, were 
never designed to form part of the Bible; and (8) that, since the concur- 
rent voice of antiquity declares the first of our four Greek Gospels to have 
proceeded from 3. Matthew, we are justified in assuming that it actually 
has proceeded, in its present form, from the pen of that Apostle. But— 

IL. This inference is strongly confirmed by the admitted fact that, “ our 


1 A writer in “The Edinburgh Review” (July, 1851, p. 39), observes :—“ Jerome 
himself at first thought that it was the authentic Matthew, and translated it into 
both Greek and Latin from a copy which he obtained at Bercea in Syria. This ap- 
pears from his Catalogue of Illustrious Men, written in the year 392. Six years 
later, in his Commentary on Matthew, he spoke more doubtfully about it,—‘ quod 
vocatur ὦ plerisque Matthei authenticum.’ Later still, in his book on the Pelagian 
heresy, written in the year 415, he modifies this account still further, describing the 
work as the ‘Evangelium juxta Hebrzeos, quod Chaldaico quidem Syroque sermone, 
sed Hebraicis literis scriptum est, quo utuntur usque hodie Nazareni, secundum Apos- 
tolos, sive, wt plerique autwmant juxta Matthzeum, quod et in Cesariensi habetur 
Bibliotheca.’ ” 

? This fact is the more to our purpose when we call to mind the nature of the 
Syrian tradition on this subject. Assemauni (‘‘ Bibl. Orient.,” vol. iii. p. 8) thus trans- 
lates a passage in Ebedjesu’s “ Catal. Libror. Syrorum:” “ Cujus [scil. Novi Testa- 
menti] caput est Matthzeus, gue Hebraice in Palestina scripsit.” On which Assemanni 
notes: —“ Hae est communis Syrorum sententia de sermone, quo primum Evangelia 
conscripta dicuntur,” ὅσο. 


472 APPENDIX M. 


Greek Gospel of Matthew is of such a peculiar character, that it is impos- 
sible for us to regard it as a mere version. Does a man who is translating 
an important work from one language into another allow himself to make 
alterations in the book which he is translating, to change the ideas it pre- 
sents? Something of the kind must be supposed to have been done in the 
Greek Gospel of Matthew with regard to the Hebrew. * * * Now 
as sometimes the argument is wholly based on this independent character 
of the text in the citations from the books of the Old Testament, and could 
not have accorded at all with the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, it is clear 
that our Greek Gospel must be somethiag else than a mere version.”— 
Olshausen, loc. cit." This independent character of our Greek Gospel, as 
inferred from its manner of quoting the Old Testament, is allowed almost 
universally by critics.” (I should add that Ebrard questions the force of 
this argument; on the ground that the Greek Gospel is but the translation 
of an Aramaic original, in which the Hebrew texts had been already trans- 
lated. No independence, therefore, he argues, can be ascribed to the 
Greek :—see his “ Krit. der ev. Gesch.,” s. 766.) 

II. But the most important branch of the argument remains :—“ The 
idea that some unknown individual translated the Hebrew Gospel of Mat- 
thew, and that this translation is our Canonical Gospel, is, in the first place, 
contradicted by the circumstance of the universal diffusion of this same 
Greek Gospel of Matthew, which makes it absolutely necessary to suppose 
that the translation was executed by some one of acknowledged influence 
in the Church, indeed, of Apostolic authority. In any other case, would 
not objections to this Gospel have been urged in some quarter or other, 
particularly in the country where Matthew himself labored, and where his 
writings were familiarly known? There is not, however, the slightest trace 
of any such opposition to it.”* Let some particular features of the case 
be here glanced at. All are agreed that S. Matthew was the first to write. 
The passage from S. Irenzeus, quoted above (p. 526), places the date of S. 
Matthew’s (Hebrew, Gospel between the years 60-70: and Eusebius states 
what he had ascertained as to the occasion of its composition ;—viz., that 
when 3. Matthew (who alone had remained up to this date at Jerusalem) 
“was on the point of going to preach elsewhere, he left the Church his 
Gospel, written in his native tongue, in order to supply the want of his 
presence (ὡς ἔμελλε καὶ ἐφ᾽ ἑτέρους ἰέναι, πατρίῳ γλώττῃ γραφῇ Tapa- 


1 A translator, in short, would either have borrowed from the LXX. its version of 
the Hebrew quotations inserted in the Aramaic original; or he would have himself 
supplied a translation according to the Hebrew :—in no case would he have ventured 
to alter the literal meaning by a free translation. The cases in which the author of 
our Greek Gospel has freely used the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, and de- 
parted from the LXX., are, ὃ. Matt. xii, 19; xiii. 35; viii. 17 (cf, supra, p. 321); 
xxvii. 9, 10 (cf, supra, p. 309, note); xv. 9. See Hug, loc. cit. § 12, 5. 52. 

2 De Wette observes: ‘On account of its relation to the other Gospels,—partly in 
its use of the LXX., partly in Greek expressions,—so much is certain, that we by no 
means have in it the simple translation of an Aramaic original composition proceeding 
from an Apostle "—Hinieit., Th. ii. s. 166. And he quotes Credner, who has proved 
(‘‘ Hinleit.,” s. 94) that all the quotations from the Pentateuch evince, by the form in 
which they are cited, their Greek origin; especially ch. xix. 5; xv. 4; xviii. 16, ὅσ. 
The Greek foundation. too, of the form in which the Prophets are quoted is no less 
unmistakeable.-—(7 bid. s. 168.) 

* Olshausen, We. cit. 


APPENDIX M. 473 


δοὺς τὸ κατ᾽ αὐτὸν Evayyéduov κ. τ. A.)’—(H. Ἐν iii. ο. 24, p. 116). 
Here comes in the important testimony of S. Papias (A); which, as 
Thiersch shows, directs us to the author of the Greek Gospel, and which 
he translates as follows: “ Matthew had composed the sacred traditions in 
the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as best he could,” 
[“if we thus,” writes Thiersch, “translate his words (the aorist as plu- 
perfect), they point—if they are not to be considered as fragmentary to 
the extent of being unintelligible—to the following thought as their com- 
pletion” ]—until Matthew himself published the Greek document, which 
is read in the whole Church as his Gospel.”’ If mere natural capabilities 
be looked for, who more competent to undertake such a translation than 
“Matthew the Publican,” who, from his office, was necessarily acquainted 
with the Greek language, so generally spoken in Palestine? And as to 
the solicitude of the Apostles for the Hellenistic Jews, we have a sufficient 
proof in the case where “there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against 
the Hebrews,” in a matter of ordinary detail (Acts, vi. 1). We cannot 
doubt, therefore, that, as soon as the want was felt of a Greek translation 
of the Hebrew Gospel, means were taken to supply it: to which the addi- 
tional motive was added of providing a work profitable for the Church 
universal, which day after day was taking deeper root among the Gentiles 
as it was spurned by the Jews. The Hebrew Gospel, therefore, was at 
once supplanted by its Greek successor, which from the earliest times has 
occupied the first place in the New Testament Canon. On no other 
hypothesis, indeed, than that of S. Matthew himself having supplied the 
present form of his earlier work, can we account either for the profound 
silence of ancient writers respecting the translator *—whose version, as we 


1 “Versuch der Herstell.,” s. 193. Thiersch explains the meaning of the word 
“interpreted” (ἡρμήνευσε) in this place, by assuming that in this Christian community 
of native-born Jews, the established custom of the Synagogue worship (see, supra, 
Lecture vii. p. 325, note *) had been adopted; and that the reading of the Hebrew 
document was followed by an “interpretation” for the benefit of those who under- 
stood only Greek. He refers to Neander “ Kirchen-Geschichte,” B. i. s. 522} who states 
that “in many Egyptian and Syrian towns, there were ecclesiastics, as in the Jewish 
Synagogues, who forthwith translated what was publicly read into the vernacular 
tongue, in order that it might be generally intelligible—quoting the words of S. 
Epiphanius when enumerating the different ecclesiastical offices: ‘Epuyveutal 
γλώσσης εἰς γλῶσσαν, ἢ ἐν ταῖς ἀναγνώσεσιν, ἢ ἐν ταῖς mpocouAiace.—Haxpos. Fid. 
Cathol., ο. xxi. (“ Adv. Heer.” lib. iii, t. i. p. 1104). 

2 That the publication of such a translation by th. author himself was nothing un- 
usual, Townson proves by the evidence of Josephus; \, ho states, in the preface to his 
narrative of the Jewish War, that his Greek work is but the translation of an earlier 
composition in Hebrew; which he translates from motives nearly the same as those 
that have been suggested in the text as likely to have given rise to the Greek form 
of our Gospel. 

3 When I say that we have no early information as to the translator, of course I 
do not mean to ignore the existence of the following hypotheses, which have been 
started by later writers:—E. g. In the “‘ Synopsis Scripture Sacre,” to be found among 
the works of S. Athanasius (t. ii. p. 202), (but which Credner “Zur Geschichte des 
Kanons,” 5. 127 ff., proves to be, at the earliest, a work of the tenth century), the in- 
genious conjecture is offered that it was translated by S. James, “the Lord’s brother, 
and first Bishop of Jerusalem.” (Cf. what has been said in the text as to the solici- 
tude of the Church for the Helienizing Christians at Jerusalem.) In the ‘‘ Chronicon” 
of S. Isidore of Seville, S. Barnabas is named (p. 272): Theophylact. (‘Comment 
in Matt.” Pref, t. i. p. 2) is followed by Huthymius Zigabenus (“ Comm. in. Evang. 
Matth.,” t. i. p. 15, ed. Matthei Lips. 1792) in representing S. John as the translator. 


474 APPENDIX N. 


have sean (p. 469), was everywhere received and quoted as if 1t actually 
proceeded from S. Matthew himself; or for the absence of the least trace 
of any other Greek translation of the Hebrew original. John the Pres 
byter (to whom unquestionably the statement of τ Papias (A) must be 
traced) clearly represents the time as past, when each used to interpret for 
himself the Hebrew Gospel. He evidently implies that our present Greek 
Gospel was the element of the Canon contributed by S. Matthew; and he 
states the fact of its original form merely as a piece of casual information, 
likely to interest those who inquired respecting the origin of the Gospels. 
The same may be said of all succeeding writers, who repeat that informa- 
tion; but who quote, as we have seen, the Greek Gospel as an original 
work of S, Matthew. 

Should this conclusion not be received, no one, at least, can refuse to 
accept the conclusion of Ebrard, “ that the translation was prepared during 
the lifetime of the Apostles; unquestionably, too, under their inspection, 
and by their commission” (Joc. cit. 5. 786). It is only by means of these 
facts—viz. the early composition, and Apostolic recognition of our Greek 
Gospel—that we can account for the disappearance of the Hebrew original, 
or explain the absence of any satisfactory information respecting it. And 
this is all that is required, in order to remove every difficulty as to the In- 
spiration of the Greek form of 5. Matthew’s Gospel. 


APPENDIX N. 
‘CINSPIRED REASONING.” 


(Lecture VIII.—Pace 372.) 


I wave selected Mr. Morell as the exponent of this opinion, merely 
because his statement of it is characterized by considerable ability, and is 
advocated with more than usual force. In general the character of In- 
spiration has been denied to the Reasoning of the sacred writers for the 
sole purpose of evading the force of certain passages in Scripture, which 
could not be reconciled with some favorite theory. Thus Bishop Burnet, 
in his remarks on the sixth Article of the Church of England, observes :— 
“When Divine writers argue upon any point, we are always bound to 
believe the conclusions that their reasonings end in, as parts of Divine 
Revelation: but we are not bound to be able to make out, or even to assent 
to, all the premises made use of by them.” Paley, who quotes and adopts 
this statement, adds :—“ In reading the Apostolic writings, we distinguish 
between their doctrines and their arguments. Their doctrines came to 
them by Revelation, properly so called; yet in propounding these doctrines 
in their writings or discourses, they were wont to illustrate, support, and 
enforce them, by such analogies, arguments, and considerations, as their 
own thoughts suggested. * * * The doctrine [of the call of the Gen- 
tiles] itself must be received; but it is not necessary in order to defend 
Christianity to defend the propriety of every comparison, or the validity 
of every argument, which the Apostle has brought into the discussion. 


APPENDIX N. 475 


The same observation applies to some other instances.” '—Zvidences of 
Christianity, part iii. ch. 2. 

The form in which Mr. Morell has stated this objection is plainly 
founded upon that particular view of syllogistic Reasoning according to 
which, when you admit the major premiss, you assert the conclusion either 
direcily, or by implication ;’—in other words, the view which represents 
the conclusion as an inference from the major premiss.* If this doctrine 
of the syllogism be received, the reply to the objection may be briefly 
stated. The major premiss being allowed (as by Mr. Morell) to be some 
truth divinely revealed, the objector argues that, as the human wind by 
its Own powers can pr oceed according to the rules of Logic, no Inspiration 
was required to draw the conclusion; which, according to the doctrine 
assumed, is but an inference from the one admitted truth. Is it, however, 
so very obvious a fact, that human Reasoning proceeds in such an orderly 
and undeviating a course as to require no ouidance ἢ Do the opinions of 
mankind, deduced from facts universally received, or from principles which 
the understanding, of necessity, acknowledges,—present a unanimity so 
striking as to justity the assertion that an znspired development of that 
Truth which God has revealed is either superfluous, or unnecessary? Of 
course no one will maintain such an assertion for a moment: and, accord- 
ingly, the objection, as I have already observed (see, supra, p. 37 1 note "), 
is at once removed by referring to the distinction between Inspiration and 
Revelation ; as well as to the importance of the former in relation to the 


1 Bishop Hinds justly points out that to suppose the writers of the New Testament 
“left liable to any false reasoning or to any mistaken application of old prophecy,” 1 
simply to theorize gratuitously: ‘‘ because the question is not really one of fact, as the 
Bible may be confidently defended against the charge of actual error of either kind.” 
—ZInspiration, p. 162. 

* Thus Archbishop Whately (‘‘ Logic,” 9th ed, p. 239), states that “the object of 
all Reasoning is merely to expand and unfold the assertions wrapt up, as it were, and 
implied in those with which we set out, and to bring a person to perceive and ac- 
knowledge the full force of that which he has admitted.” Mr. J. S. Mill illustrates as 
follows, the nature of his objections to this theory: ‘I do not say that a person who 
affirmed, before the Duke of Wellington was born, that all men are mortal, knew that 
the Duke of Wellington was mortal; but I do say, that he asserted it: and I ask for 
an explanation of the apparent logical fallacy of adducing, in proof of the Duke of 
Wellington’s mortality, a general statement which presupposes it. Finding no suffi- 
cient resolution of this difficulty in any of the writers on logic, I have attempted to 
supply one.’—A System of Logic, vol. i. ch. iii, 3d ed., p. 207, note. 

* Under this aspect the subject is discussed ‘by 8. Th. “Aquinas, when considering 
the question, “ Utrum Sacra Doctrina sit argumentativa:”—“ Sicut alice scientiz non 
argumentantur ad sua principia probanda, sed ex principiis argumentantur ad osten- 
dendum alia in ipsis scientiis; ita heec doctrina non argumentatur ad sua principia 
probanda, que sunt articuli Fidei; sed ex iis procedit ad aliquid ostendendum: sicut 
Apostolus 1 ad Cor. xy. ex Resurrectione Christi argumentatur ad resurrectionem 
communem probandam, * * ἘΞ Utitur Sacra Doctrina etiam ratione humana, non 
quidem ad probandam Fidem sed ad manifestandum aliqua alia que traduntur in hac 
Doctrina. Cum igitur gratia non tollat naturam, sed perficiat, oportet quod naturalis 
ratio subserviat Fidei, sicut et naturalis inclinatio voluntatis obsequitur caritati. 
Unde et Apostolus dicit 2 ad Cor, x. 5: ‘In captivitatem redigentes omnem intel- 
lectum in obsequium Christi.’ Et inde est quod etiam auctoritatibus Philosophorum 
sacra doctrina utitur, ubi per rationem naturalem veritatem cognoscere potuerunt, 
sicut Paulus, Act. xvii. 28, inducit verbum Arati, dicens: ‘Sicut et quidam poo- 
tarum vestrorum dixerunt: Genus Dei sumus.’ ”__Summ. Theol., pars 1 ma, qu. i art 
Viii., t. XX. p. 7. 


476 APPENDIX N. 


latter (see, supra, p. 145). Of the neglec of this distinction no 2learer 
illustration can be given than the remark of Paley just quoted :* what I 
have already said, therefore (p. 371), is of itself sufficient to meet this 
aspect of the question. 

A still more complete answer, however, is supplied, and this whole 
subject has been placed in its true light, by the profound theory of syllo- 
gistic Reasoning lately put forward by Mr. J. S. Mill;* of which the fol- 
lowing is a rapid sketch :— 

Ordinarily the major premiss of a syllogism may be regarded as a 
general proposition or formula which records or registers the inferences 
already made from particular cases; and “the conclusion is not an infer- 
ence drawn from the formula, but an inference drawn according to the for- 
mula: the real logical antecedent, or premisses being the particular facts 
from which the general proposition was collection by induction.” Accord- 
ing to the indications of this record we draw our conclusion: and the rules 
of the syllogism are a set of precautions to ensure our reading the record 
correctly. In this view of the question we assume that our knowledge has 
been derived from observation; but there are other sources from which we 
may also suppose it to come. It may present itself as coming from testi- 
mony, and it may present itself as coming from Revelation ; and this latter 
species of knowledge, “thus supernaturally communicated, may be con- 
ceived to comprise not only particular facts but general propositions, such 
as occur so abundantly in the writings of Solomon and in the Apostolic 
Epistles.* Or the generalization may not be, in the ordinary sense, an as- 
sertion at all, but a command; a law, not in the philosophical, but in the 
moral and political sense of the term: an expression of the desire of a 
superior, that we, or any number of persons, shall conform our conduct to 
certain general instructions. So far as this asserts a fact, namely, a volition 
of the legislator, that fact is an individual fact, and the proposition, there- 
fore, is not a general proposition. But the description therein contained 
of the conduct which it is the will of the legislator that his subjects should 
observe, is general. The proposition asserts not that all men are anything, 
but that all men shall do something.” “These two* cases, of a truth re- 


? Compare also Spinoza’s representation of this objection:—‘“ Si ad modum etiam 
attendamus, quo in his Epistolis Apostoli doctrinam Hvangelicam tradunt, eum etiam 
a modo Prophetarum valde discedere videbimus. Apostoli namque ubique ratiocinans 
tur, ita ut non prophetare sed disputare videantur. Prophetiz vero contra mera tan- 
tum dogmata et decreta continent, quia in iis Deus quasi loquens introducitur, qui non 
ratiocinatur, sed ex absoluto suze naturee imperio decernit. Et etiam quia Prophetaa 
auctoritas ratiocinari non patitur; gwisquis enim vult sua dogmata ratione confirmare, 
eo ipso ea arbitral’ uniuscujusque judicio submittit. * * * Itaque tam modi 
loquendi quam disserendi Apostolorum in Epistolis clarissime indicant easdem non ex 
revelatione et divino mandato, sed tantum ex ipsorum naturali judicio scriptas fuisse.” 
—Tract. Theol. Polit., cap. xi. 

2 Loc. cit. 216, &e. 

3 These latter words are taken from the first edition of Mr. Mill’s work (vol. i 
p- 260). In the third edition the passage stands thus, more generally expressed, but 
equally conveying the same sense:—“ It may present itself as coming from testimony, 
which on the occasion and for the purpose in hand, is accepted as of an authoritative 
character: and the information thus communicated may be conceived to comprise not 
only particular facts, but general propositions, as when a scientific doctrine is accepted 
without examination on the authority of writers.”—p. 217. 

+ This statement is omitted in the third edition: cf the first ed. vol. i. p. 260. 


APPENDIX N, ATT 


vealed in general terms, and a command intimated in the like manner, 
might be exchanged for the more extensive cases of any general statement 
received upon testimony’ and any general practical precept. But the more 
limited illustrations suit us better, being drawn from subjects where long 
and complicated trains of ratiocination have actually been grounded upon 
- premisses which came to mankind from the first in a general form, the 
subjects of Scriptural Theology, and of positive Law.”* “In both these 
cases the generalities are the original data, and the particulars are elicited 
from them by a process which correctly resolves itself into a series of 
syllogisms. * * * The only point to be determined is whether the 
authority which declared the general proposition intended to include ths 
case in it :’—and this “operation is not a process of inference, but a process 
of interpretation.” ‘“ When the vremieses are given by authority, the 
function of Reasoning is to usvertain the testimony of a witness, or the 
will of a legislator, by interpreting the sigus in which the one has inti- 
_ mated his assertion, and the other his command. In like manner, when 
the premisses are derived from observation, the function of Reasoning is to 
ascertain what we (or our predecessors) formerly thought might be in- 
ferred from the observed facts, and to do this by interpreting a memoran- 
dum of ours or of theirs.” 

Now, were we to pause here, it would of itself be obvious how essentiat 
it was that the sacred writer, when interpreting the divinely revealed Trutk 
from which his Reasoning flows, should have been himself divinely guided, 
in order to ensure certainty, or even to obtain an insight into the applica- 
bility of the Divine command to any particular instance: but we must go 
a step farther. There are cases, it is true, in which the minor premiss 
(which “always affirms a resembiance between a new case, and some cases 
previously known”)* is obvious to the senses, or at once ascertainable by 
direct observation: it may not, however, be thus intuitively evident, but 
may itself be known only by inference. It may itself be the conclusion 
of another argument; and must, therefore, be inferred from some other 
general proposition, which presents the record of a class of observations 
that may be totally different.* This clearly may take place many times in 
succession ; and hence arises a train of Reasoning. 

Under this form almost every instance of Reasoning in Scripture pre- 
sents itself. The sacred writer, desiring to apply some one proposition that 





See note 3 page 476. 

? On this theory of Mr. Mill, Dr. Whewell observes:—“I say, then, that Mr. Mill 
appears to me especially instructive in his discussion of the nature of the proof which 
is conveyed by the syllogism; and that his doctrine, that the form of the syllogism 
consists in an inductive assertion, with an interpretation added to it, solves very happily 
the difficulties which baffle the other theories of this subject. 1 think that this doc- 
trine of his is made still more instructive by his excepting from it the cases of Scrip- 
tural Theology and of Positive Law, as cases in which general propositions, not 
particular facts, are our original data.”—Of Induction, p. 85. 

* See Mr. Mill’s remarks, loc. cit. ch. iv. p. 233, &e. 

* Mr. Mill gives the follow example:—“ All arsenic is poisonous; the substanca 
which is before me is arsenic; therefore it is poisonous.” Here to prove the minor, 
viz., ‘‘the substance which is before me is arsenic,” we proceed thus:—‘‘ Whatever 
forms a compound with hydrogen, which yields a black precipitate with nitrate a 
silver, is arsenic: the substance before me conforms to this condition; therefore i μ 
arsenic.’—IJhid p. 284. 


478 APPENDIX N. 


expresses the Revelation from which he proceeds, introduces a second pro- 
position in order to exhibit its applicability. Now, this second proposition 
may be merely the result of some other Divine Truth; or be itself a re- 
vealed proposition. In such a train of Reasoning each new premiss may 
have been supernaturally communicated (cf. the remark of Professor Butler 
quoted, supra, p. 369, note *); and thus, in point of fact, the inspired 
reasoner but connects the different threads of the Divine Counsels, exem- 
plifies how “deep answereth to deep” in the mysteries of Revelation, and 


presents in one connected train of argument those words of God which 


had been uttered “at sundry times and in divers manners.”* 


? E. g. the reasoning of 5, Paul, 1 Cor. iii. 16, is plainly a case of this kind. His 
argument may be thus stated:—“The habitation of the Spirit of God becomes 
thereby the Temple of God; you are the habitation of the Spirit of God; therefore, 
know ye not that ye are the Temple of God.’ Here (the argument having been 
stated under the form of an Enthymeme, the minor premiss being expressed), the sup- 
pressed major premiss is a general proposition which defines the true nature of the 
Temple of God; and may be regarded either as being itself a new revelation, or, 
perhaps, merely as the record or register of earlier revelations on the subject. The 
minor premiss, in turn, is itself a revelation; for Christ had already declared :—‘“ The 
Spirit of Truth Whom the world cannot receive. * * * He dwelleth with you, 
and shail be in you.”—S. John, xiv. 17. The conclusion, thus deduced, becomes, in 
the next place, a premiss in the argument stated in the following verse:—“ If any 
man defile the Temple of God, him shall God destroy; ror the Temple of God is 
holy, which Temple ye are.” 


THE END. 


hs 


' a 
LG 
i A ᾿ ἊΨ. 


μι ὺ 





Je 


Hes nM ye 


















. ai 


